WI: Israel goes all the way in the 6-Day War

What if Israel, instead of stopping short of Cairo, Damascus, Amman, and Beirut, had continued their advance and captured or surrounded the Arab capitals? How would the Mideast look different? Would, for example, the Israelis establish a Palestinian puppet state in Jordan, and annex the West Bank without its Arab population as part of the deal? Would Lebanon collapse? How would Pan-Arabism fare in relation to socialism, Islamism or some form of western democracy? Would the Soviets have gotten more involved?
 
For startes, Beirut wouldn't have been captured, because Lebanon was not involved in the war. As for the rest of the Arab capitals, the IDF would not want to get into a bloody street fight like this. The 3 Israeli armoured divisions won a decisive victory in the Sinai, but to have penetrated into the Nile delta, not to mention Cairo itself, would be quite another matter. I don't even want to think of the political fallout from this.
The one time the IDF did capture an Arab capital, Beirut in 1982, they were up against very limited opposition. There was no real Lebanese army at this time, they had given the Syrians a serious bloody nose in the Bekaa Valley, and the PLO had already left Beirut. The Lebanese Phalangists were their somewhat reluctant allies, and that only left the Lebanese leftists to oppose them.
 
Perhaps but why?

The IDF at the time could have gotten to Damascus but to cross let alone cut off the Suez Canal would have required an operation coordinated with a fairly strong power or two at the time like was done during 1956. The Soviets would want to do something to prevent the Syrian government from falling as they had plans which eventually culminated in a major Mediterranean naval depot for them there. As for Jordan the ruling monarchy there had strong ties with the UK dating back to the time they placed the ruling family there from Medina.
 
Simple, they weren't going to throw away more lives than was necessary for the sake of a victory that says "Hey look we totally kicked your ass" but in the long-term only gives Israel's neighbors an axe to grind against them.
 
the possibility of Soviet intervention is one thing holding back the Israelis (the US was not as close an ally then either)

I don't think the Israelis have any bridging equipment, at least not in the amounts needed for a thrust across the Suez in 1967 (I seem to recall them getting their equipment during the War of Attrition period)

Lebanon of course was safe as it wasn't even in the war.

If memory serves, the Israelis were also on a fairly tight logistical and financial leash.. a longer war wasn't something they were willing to consider unless forced (as in 1973)

Then of course there is also the matter of this kind of thrust being very dangerous politically... the UN only held back a cease fire order until after the Israelis had reached their goals because of US veto threat... it was not in the interest of the US for them to reach further, so that US political support would have dried up if they had attempted to take capitals
 
What if Israel, instead of stopping short of Cairo, Damascus, Amman, and Beirut, had continued their advance and captured or surrounded the Arab capitals? How would the Mideast look different? Would, for example, the Israelis establish a Palestinian puppet state in Jordan, and annex the West Bank without its Arab population as part of the deal? Would Lebanon collapse? How would Pan-Arabism fare in relation to socialism, Islamism or some form of western democracy? Would the Soviets have gotten more involved?

To few Israelis...too many Arabs, for Israel to go around conquering major capital cities. In the 1960'es Greater Cairo was populated by 17.000.000 people, 7 in the city itself, 10 in the surburbs!! That would be impossible, even for a well trained army.
 
Short-term Zionwank, long-term Arabwank.

This.

Plus, I think the Soviets or Americans (or both) would stop that. Anyway, it is not very plausible. Israel won the war decisively. Street-fighting in Damascus and Cairo or crossing the Nile would have only negative effects on the war (to the Israel).
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Considering all the other commitments, the Israelis would have been able to spare only a few thousand men at most for garrison duty. There would have been no possible way for a few thousand Israeli troops to control massive Arab cities with populations in the millions.
 
How would Pan-Arabism fare in relation to socialism, Islamism or some form of western democracy?
Lets say the Israelis nearly ecircled Cairo and Damascus. The Israei then destroy electrical, food, water supplies and the transportation infrastructure by artillery and air strkes before withdrawing....

My guess is that both governments collapse and the Islamacists take over. They would be seen as the only option since the biggest western democracy openly backed Israel and the quasi socialist governments backed by the USSR not only failed to produce a military victory, but produced a disasterous defeat.

Maybe....

1972: Revenge war would need to be launched with out Soviet military advise and with only partially equipped militaries (Soviets refuse to sell the latest equipment to the Islamacists). Aside from a few face saving artillery duels, the war never really gets off the ground and ther Islamacists decide to expand first. The Islamacists in Cairo (far more numerous and zealous than their Damascus counter parts) take the lead....

1973: The Jordanian monarchy appeases the Islamacists throught legislating sharia friendly laws and by giving a cabinet level position to a radical imam.

1975: The Saudi monarchy is pushed to collapse. Only the intervention of U.S. forces, who are far more interested in Saudi oil than Saudi princes per se saves it. The US is then involved in a nasty guerilla war in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. decides to occupy only the oil producting regions. Though this does keep foreign troops out of Mecca and Medina, it leads to the de facto establishment of two Saudi States. It also gives the Islamic guerillas large safe havens for en endless war.

1977: Conscription returns to the USA, so does alot of social upheavel. In the end, however, the USA needs oil so US forces stay in Saudi Arabia. Islamacists cant force US and Saudi royalists from oil fields, so they look for other targets. Gulf countries are too small and too tightly controled to make good guerilla country. They are bypassed in favor of Indonesia.

1979: Islamcist guerilla movements are spread through out Indonesia and Aceh is declares itself an independent Islamic state.
 
Last edited:
Lets say the Israelis nearly ecircled Cairo and Damascus. The Israei then destroy electrical, food, water supplies and the transportation infrastructure by artillery and air strkes before withdrawing....

My guess is that both governments collapse and the Islamacists take over. They would be seen as the only option since the biggest western democracy openly backed Israel and the quasi socialist governments backed by the USSR not only failed to produce a military victory, but produced a disasterous defeat.

Maybe....

1972: Revenge war would need to be launched with out Soviet military advise and with only partially equipped militaries (Soviets refuse to sell the latest equipment to the Islamacists). Aside from a few face saving artillery duels, the war never really gets off the ground and ther Islamacists decide to expand first. The Islamacists in Cairo (far more numerous and zealous than their Damascus counter parts) take the lead....

1973: The Jordanian monarchy appeases the Islamacists throught legislating sharia friendly laws and by giving a cabinet level position to a radical imam.

1975: The Saudi monarchy is pushed to collapse. Only the intervention of U.S. forces, who are far more interested in Saudi oil than Saudi princes per se saves it. The US is then involved in a nasty guerilla war in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. decides to occupy only the oil producting regions. Though this does keep foreign troops out of Mecca and Medina, it leads to the de facto establishment of two Saudi States. It also gives the Islamic guerillas large safe havens for en endless war.

1977: Conscription returns to the USA, so does alot of social upheavel. In the end, however, the USA needs oil so US forces stay in Saudi Arabia. Islamacists cant force US and Saudi royalists from oil fields, so they look for other targets. Gulf countries are too small and too tightly controled to make good guerilla country. They are bypassed in favor of Indonesia.

1979: Islamcist guerilla movements are spread through out Indonesia and Aceh is declares itself an independent Islamic state.

In Indonesia there's only one problem with that, and its name is Suharto.
 
it would be such a disaster.

the IDF in war-time operates at ten-tenths with nothing in reserve, it's all-out, "get there firstest with the mostest," prevail as quickly as possible.

going beyond that is just a recipe for a millions kinds of disaster.


like someone above noted, short term Israel wank, long term Arab wank.
 
it would be such a disaster.

the IDF in war-time operates at ten-tenths with nothing in reserve, it's all-out, "get there firstest with the mostest," prevail as quickly as possible.

going beyond that is just a recipe for a millions kinds of disaster.


like someone above noted, short term Israel wank, long term Arab wank.

Pretty much, manpower is a commodity in Israel's wars, bleeding its forces dry fighting an overextended battle that will only give them a morale victory will mean weaker Israeli armies in the future, that includes for the policing of the Occupied Territories, which the Palestine Liberation Organization and its sponsors will benefit the most from.
 
Top