What if the Arab countries (mainly Egypt, Syria, and Jordan) had managed to beat Israel in the Six Days' War of 1967 and conclude a peace favourable to their interests, instead of losing large territories to Israel?
What would they negotiate for? An enlarged and sovereign Palestine, perhaps in confederation with Israel? Or a darker scenario, involving massacres and ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population?
What would be further effects on the Middle East and the world? Does Nasser and the Arab League still end up getting comfy with the USSR? Could a better Arab situation and morale post-war provide the impetus for a pan-Arab state (UAR)? With less of a Palestinian diaspora problem, would Lebanon still face the same political challenges it faced IOTL?
Any further thoughts?
 
Achieving this is damn hard, given Israel's superiority in both military terms and in terms of intelligence. Israel also had a couple of rudimentary nuclear devices by that point if it wanted to go down that route.

If you could wave a magic wand... I think the Soviet Union steps in, and stops the Arabs wiping Israel off the map.
 
If the rest of the world steps in, maybe you see an Israel as almost a microstate centered on a coastal strip around Tel Aviv. Any territory given to Palestine, assuming such a country comes in to being, will rapidly have very very few Jews - either due to killings, forced expulsion, or those leaving not wishing to be second or third class citizens and having most goods expropriated. If the rest of the world just tut-tuts, once the looting, raping, and killing stops the Jews are in temporary camps and allowed to leave with two suitcases for whatever countries will take them - and there is a time limit for complete cleansing. The interesting thing is what next. Do the Arab countries let the Palestinians back in but chop up Israel in to "occupation zones" which become permanent. I doubt very much that in a victory scenario the Jordanians would give the West Bank to the Palestinians, they only did so when they no longer controlled it, likewise the Egyptians with Gaza.

Any remaining Jewish state after this defeat will be markedly diminished in area and population, and militarily so weak it cannot defend itself, and expect that you'll have PLO and other "fighters" crossing in to this state to "liberate" via terror the remaining bits of "occupied Palestine". It will also not be economically viable.

The exact parameters of an Arab victory in the Six-Day War are fuzzy, however there is one thing for sure. What you won't see is a "Palestine" including Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank as an independent nation with an Arab majority and a large Jewish minority living in ethnic harmony with rainbows and unicorns and all citizens equal both de jure and de facto.
 
In my opinion, the manpower losses to the Arab armies would be massive. With the memories of the concentration camps in their minds, the Jews would fight to the last person. Toward the end there would be suicide bombers taking out tanks, armoured cars, and any high profile targets like command and control centers.
 
WI the Israeli and Syrian Armies swapped tanks before fighting erupted on the Golan Heights.
Would (Syrian)!105mm-armed Centurians be able to oust smaller numbers of (Israeli) T-55s?
 
Israel also had a couple of rudimentary nuclear devices by that point if it wanted to go down that route.

This is the problem. If Tel Aviv is facing down total annhilation, it has absolutely ZERO reason not to go “Fuck you, if I’m going, you’re all coming with me.”
 
I would have to imagine even the US and the Soviets could get on the same page about stopping a nuclear release. The question is, where is Israel's red line? That matters because if it's like "on the doorstep of Tel Aviv," that's pretty desperate and I can see the Security Council stepping in to support Israel in exchange for them not going nuclear. But if it's like "an enemy takes a single step across our border," then the Security Council might be more inclined to step in but in more of a punitive way towards Israel. Somewhere in between those two extremes the equation flips and I leave it to others to figure out where.

I somehow don't see any eventual peace settlement being left up to the Arabs or the Israelis.

And remember we still have a post-war consensus largely built around the idea that territory should not change hands through conquest. That cut against the Israelis IOTL and it would potentially cut against the Arabs ITTL.
 
Massacres and ethnic cleansing are most likely. That was after all what was being called for amid the street hysteria that was pushing Egypt in particular.

As for the Palestinians, it is doubtful that Jordan renounces sovereignty over Jerusalem, as the Hashemites do not take lightly their role as custodians of the holy sites. But I suppose once Syria and Egypt make their respective grab for the spoils of war, some kind of collaborationist Palestinian led state would arise from tje ashes of Israel. I dont think any of the Arab states had any claims on Tel Aviv, for example.

My assumption is that an Arab victory would hinge on cleaving Israel in two by way of a Jordanian rush to the coast. The Syrian front was likely to be a quagmire as well because of the armed kibbutzim in the valley.

I do not know if Israel had a nuclear force capable of carrying out revenge strikes in 1967. But I do not think the Soviets would be preaching restraint either, once it becomes clear that no French or American help was on the way.
 
#1 problem is incompetent leadership of the Arab armies, inept Arab intel services, and poor training of Arab troops, which made an invasion a really bad idea.

Israel tries to nuke Damascus, Amman, and the Aswan dam with mixed results. The Arab countries are even angrier and swear that they will refuse to stop until every single Jew is out of Israel.

Jews still in Arab countries will be suspected of enemy sympathies and expelled, but probably not killed unless Israel successfully nukes a civilian center, in which case revenge killings will be common, claiming the lives of thousands minimum. Jews in Israel will be ethnically cleansed--somewhere between Mugabe's actions in Zimbabwe and Iron Guard Romania. No organized genocide, the Arabs don't have the infrastructure to do that and they're running on "these people invaded our brothers, kicked our brothers off of their land, then murdered our families", not obscure conspiracy theory crap, so they'll just open fire on civilians as payback for any nuked cities. This will destroy military cohesion but I'm assuming that the IDF has basically folded at this point (necessary for Israel to break out the nukes and gas). Most likely once actual mass killings start to happen, the international community (USA and USSR, basically) step in, USA setting up a perimeter as a safe zone for Israelis and the Soviets demanding that the Arabs stop immediately or the USSR will pull support because Leonid Brezhnev was too busy giving himself medals to enjoy nuclear war.

Israel will still exist, in a very limited and perpetually angry fashion. Tensions will be high and the USA will be tied down with actual military bases there. The Arab world will be vehemently anti-USA from early on, and likely pro-China once China drags its way out of the disaster that was Mao.

Sadly, the Lake Hula fish species that Israel drove to extinction so they could have some shitty farmland are still extinct. Hundreds of thousands of civilians will be dead, the bad blood will be insurmountable for centuries, and millions will be displaced. Complete disaster. Continued guerilla activity and border skirmishes for decades, political disaster and rigid factionalization over the issue in the USA, heightened Cold War tensions, small but significant chance of nuclear war with potential casualties in the billions.

The core thing with Israel is that the best way to avoid the whole situation we have today is for the Arabs to win in '48, likely due to a slower international intervention (from what I've read, the tide was turning when the UN stepped in). In which case, Israeli colonists are ethnically cleansed but Palestinian civilians are not, Jews in Egypt, Jordan, etc. are harassed for a few years/a decade or two by the Arab countries as potential enemy sympathizers, but without the existence of a Jewish settler colony making a point of being by, for, and about Jews while kicking Palestinians off their ancestral land and occupying bits of other Arab countries, these tensions likely gradually disappear under international pressure over the next half-century.
 
All the Israelis need to do is deliver three weapons: Damascus, Amman, and the Aswan High Dam.

"need to do" for what gain? winning the war after they have conventionally lost it? by that point taking out two cities and an unfinished dam will achieve nothing.

note that assuming that they actually can those three targets (let alone actually destroy them completly) is very likely overly generous of an interpretation. No,in 1967 nukes would stay in the shadows of the field armies still.
 
If the Aswan High Dam gets hit by even a 20-30 kt fission device, adios Egypt - the hydrostatic pressure will do all the work (worked for the British in WWII). Air burst over Damascus and Amman will cause a lot of destruction, most of the building are not going to do well, and there will be firestorms. Emergency services such as fire service are not all that good to begin with, with central control and some assets gone, it will be ugly. The IAF until the very end is likely to retain the capability to fly low level (even one way/kamikaze) missions to those targets.

In 1967 there are basically no Jews outside of Israel in the Arab countries east of Tunisia. None in the Arabian Peninsula, none in Jordan, none in Iraq. Very few in Syria, very few if any in Egypt, very few in Libya in Libya. The largest Jewish community was in Morocco, smaller in Algeria and Tunisia. Significant actions against the Jews in the Western Maghreb are unlikely in any case, especially in Morocco. In those Arab countries that are more "front line" states those very small Jewish populations are likely to be at risk - OTL there were pogroms, confiscations, executions after the 1967 war.

In the face of the scenario where the Arabs are "winning", you are seeing a lot of nastiness going on against Israeli civilians in areas being occupied as the armies press forward, some by troops and much more by irregulars that will be following along (ref the Wars of Independence). The Israeli government is facing total destruction of the state, the USA can't really do much (remember Vietnam is going on) and they are not going to risk a confrontation with the USSR - OTL the threat of such a confrontation is a major reason why they put the brakes on the Israelis in 1967 (and 1973). If they take out Aswan, Damascus, and Amman it may cause sufficient confusion they could stave off complete defeat, or it may cause the big boys to agree to stop things. If neither of those happen, Israel goes down in flames which is what will happen if they don't do it. Masada, Samson in the temple of the Philistines, and "never again" are not just slogans. If Israel is going to die, they are going to make sure their enemies really, really pay a price. The desire of all Israelis to not get on board the cattle cars without a fight to the death cannot be overstated.
 
Last edited:
In the face of the scenario where the Arabs are "winning", you are seeing a lot of nastiness going on against Israeli civilians in areas being occupied as the armies press forward, some by troops and much more by irregulars that will be following along (ref the Wars of Independence). The Israeli government is facing total destruction of the state, the USA can't really do much (remember Vietnam is going on) and they are not going to risk a confrontation with the USSR - OTL the threat of such a confrontation is a major reason why they put the brakes on the Israelis in 1967 (and 1973). If they take out Aswan, Damascus, and Amman it may cause sufficient confusion they could stave off complete defeat, or it may cause the big boys to agree to stop things. If neither of those happen, Israel goes down in flames which is what will happen if they don't do it. Masada, Samson in the temple of the Philistines, and "never again" are not just slogans. If Israel is going to die, they are going to make sure their enemies really, really pay a price. The desire of all Israelis to not get on board the cattle cars without a fight to the death cannot be overstated.
I'm afraid the Samson Option as a strategy was hampered by political and ethical constraints -- how are the Jews going to ensure that what happened to them "never happens again" when they've committed effective PR suicide through such a barbarous massacre against Egyptian civilians? They can't just pull a "no u" and point at the Egyptians massacring Jews in Israel proper (who might intensify their violence in retaliation for the nuking of Aswan).
But alas, more illogical decisions have been made in the fray of warfare.
 
If the Aswan High Dam gets hit by even a 20-30 kt fission device, adios Egypt

how will the destruction of an unfinished dam with an entirely empty reservoir lead to the destruction of egypt? and how will the partial destruction of all of two cities safe israel after its conventional loss? heck,the arabs are probably to consider it a fairly light price for getting permanently rid of israel,its lower damage than a proper strategic bombing campaign,let alone a true nuclear war.

edit says I may have been too charitable for israel in even playing along with this "they nuke three targets deep behind enemy lines" As far as I know Israel had only two crude devices,with unknown deploability by aircraft.
 
So if you look at this from and non Arab non Israeli lenses in 1967. Israel would be seen as an aggressor that got their ass handed to them by their bigger neighbours and if they used nukes then they'd would have lost international support.

But in my opinion that won't happen. If the arabs manage to stop the Israeli offensive and then manage to push them back. The resulting military casualties would be high for both sides, but the arabs can easily rebound. Heck israel could see its young male population crippled.

For me if the war was a utter failure expect the Israelis to lose a lot of land and be reduced to a coastal strip in the med, expect the entire Israeli leadership removed from power. Palestine would be in a sort of union with Jordan as the Hashemites won't give up Jerusalem.

Both superpowers would intervene as neighter is interested in a seeing Israel destroyed for geopolitical reasons, but would let the arabs take the spoils of their victory. This war would be seen as one of the biggest failures of all time. Imo nukes won't be used as it would takes weeks for the arabs to stop the initial offensive and months to get into Israel proper enough time for cooler heads to prevail.

Demographically I would expect many Jews to leave for Europe or America and when the USSR collapses many soviet Jews would now be in western Europe and America instead of going to Israel. Expect the Jewish nation to have a population of 3-4 million in alt 2019 and far less "militaristic" than our Israel.

The victory for the arabs would mean Arab nationalism would be at an all time high. And IMO it's failure is what's lead to the rise of Islamism in the arabs world then spread into the Muslim world.
 
"need to do" for what gain? winning the war after they have conventionally lost it? by that point taking out two cities and an unfinished dam will achieve nothing.

note that assuming that they actually can those three targets (let alone actually destroy them completly) is very likely overly generous of an interpretation. No,in 1967 nukes would stay in the shadows of the field armies still.

At this point, Israel is led by Holocaust survivors, and given the propaganda in the Arab nations, they were expecting another genocide. The Samson Option is, quite simply, "We're going to make you pay SO HARD that nobody will ever, EVER do this to us again." What they "need to do" is establish that point, and taking out two enemy capitals plus causing massive damage to Egypt by flooding the Nile accomplishes that goal. Whether that's where they'd attack, hey, it's all speculation; it never came close to that point in '67.

No, it's not a nice goal.

how will the destruction of an unfinished dam with an entirely empty reservoir lead to the destruction of egypt? and how will the partial destruction of all of two cities safe israel after its conventional loss? heck,the arabs are probably to consider it a fairly light price for getting permanently rid of israel,its lower damage than a proper strategic bombing campaign,let alone a true nuclear war.

edit says I may have been too charitable for israel in even playing along with this "they nuke three targets deep behind enemy lines" As far as I know Israel had only two crude devices,with unknown deploability by aircraft.

The reservoir started filling in 1964, so while it doesn't completely annihilate Egypt, it does cause tremendous damage. Exactly what the Israelis had on hand is impossible to tell, since they've never officially admitted to having anything even today, but one of their plans in 1967 involved smuggling a bomb into the Sinai Desert (away from any population centers) and setting it off as a warning, so it's reasonable to assume they had *something* usable.
 
Top