Yom Kippur War

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

The point is that all of those actions were seen as the heroic sacrifices needed to achieve victory. With Victory being defined as the political outcome to the conflict.

Very often what matters most is perception. As a serving soldier in the US military you perhaps did not scoff as much as many people here at the sight of yoru comrade in his armoured vehicle on hearing that the US was withdrawing from Iraq shouting out "Who hoo! We're going home! We won!!"

The cynics among us might say that you're going home precisely because you didn't win. Your leaving behind a country wrecked by civil war, hopelessly divided and with more of its citizens embittered by than grateful for the actions of the US.

That exultant GI reminded me of a 20 year old thug mugging an infirm 95 year old, finding out that he wasn't carrying any money and saying "At least I owned that guy in the fight! Man, I gave him some shock and awe!"

But what's important is not whether or not the US "won" but that they believe they won. That is very important to them. Hence the insistence by many Republicans that Obama use the word "Victory" in his subsequent state of the Union address.

Back to Yom Kippur. The Egyptians think they won. They got back the Sinai. They put that down to the performance of their army during the Suez crossing.

Remember the event that Sadat was attending when he was assassinated? It was a ceremony to commemorate "the crossing". A full on military victory parade. I don't know whether the Egyptians still hold it but there's no doubt they convinced themselves that they had achieved a great victory.

The Palestinians are going to need something similar, sooner or later.

The Egyptians 'think they won' in 1973!!!!
Yes, and many Arabs think that the Holocaust
never happened!!!!!
They can think what they like!!!!
Egypt 'got back the Sinai', because Israel
handed it back to them!!!!!!!!!

depaly

alandublin15 wrote: »

havent read the full thread, but from the quick look i can see people taking up both sides and the usual israel/arab arguements coming out.
having watched a little bit about the arab israeli wars and the birth of israel. (birth of israel is a good documentary on youtube btw). my final feeling is that the situation is perfect.
colonists and islamists locked in constant war while acting as a buffer to europe. the arabs would only have sooner or later tried it on with greece or the lower east continent. and colonist thiefs who drive people out of their homes...well they just deserve it.
enjoy each others company.


(although i do feel a bit bad for the arabs)

Jews have lived in Israel/Palestine for
a few thousand years.
Colonists???

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

what have you ever done for Israel? Ever been there? Ever worked there?

I have, and I like to think that my knowledge of the country's history and situation is as good as anybody else's from round these parts and better than most.

I readily accept, as alandublin15 appears to intimate, that when many Irish people get hot and bothered about Israel/Palestine it is in fact their own local rivalries and preferences that are being acted out. Pro Palestinians are moved to apoplexy by the likes of Israeli apologists like Tom Cooney and Ian O'Doherty; pro Israelis are irritated by Richard Boyd Barrett and other trendy lefties. It's a simple trap to fall into.



It's not their raison d'etre but it's an inevitable consequence of their actions. Even their very existence. They had to expel the Palestinians from much of what was useful and productive and fertile in the country in order to build their own cities and settlements. You cannot gainsay that fact.

Their military strength has allowed them to establish a state of reasonable size but it has not been able to pacify the Palestinians. That is a simple recognition of the limitations of military power.

The only people who can pacify the Palestinians are themselves. When they feel they have earned enough on which to build a settlement, they will stop. Or at least, enough of them will so that the extremists can be marginalised and bypassed. You will always have recalcitrants, a "Continuity PLO" as it were, but these can be defeated if their support among the community they claim to represent withers away.

So how do you get them to stop? Israels answer is to go on handing them their arses. At least that's steady work for their military. Because that just means that they will have to continue doing that interminably.

Until it gets to the point, some may say it has got there already, where in fact Israel's 'raison d'etre' is indeed as you described.




Whoa!! Is that the dim flickering of a light bulb going on over your head? Hold that thought and then ask how you might "empower" the Palestinians to accept a settlement.

By making them feel they've earned it. By achieving a victory which earns them the right to be magnanimous. The Israelis will never let them do that, so Israel's friends are going to have to hold them down while the Palestinians land one on them.

A stint in Israel doesn't necessarily
make you any more informed!!!!
Although it certainly seems to have
generated some arrogance!!!!

There's no fact to gainsay!!!!
It's a rather sweeping statement that
the Palestinians in toto were 'expelled'
by Israel.
Read up about the 1948 war, and get the
full picture....

Most of what is 'useful, productive and fertile
in the country' has been introduced by the
Israelis themselves after 1948!!!!

What exactly would constitute a Palestinian
'victory' for you???
A major massacre???
Be specific.

Snickers Man

depaly wrote: »

Jews have lived in Israel/Palestine for
a few thousand years.
Colonists???

And many of those particular Jews, the ultra orthodox, are utterly opposed to the existence of Israel, regarding it as a blasphemy that a Jewish state be created before the arrival of the Messiah.

Zionism is a phenomenon which dates from the last years of the 19th century.

Snickers Man

depaly wrote: »

A stint in Israel doesn't necessarily
make you any more informed!!!!
Although it certainly seems to have
generated some arrogance!!!!

More informed than some.

There's no fact to gainsay!!!!
It's a rather sweeping statement that
the Palestinians in toto were 'expelled'
by Israel.
Read up about the 1948 war, and get the
full picture....

No need to go down that road. Various people's potted history of Palestine has been aired so many times on this board. I think the Palestinians were far more sinned against than sinners in that conflict; you clearly don't. We won't convince each other on that score but that's not important.

I'm talking about learning lessons from a more recent conflict that may actually lead to peace in Israel.

depaly wrote:

What exactly would constitute a Palestinian
'victory' for you???
A major massacre???
Be specific.

What's a major massacre? Something on the scale of Hiroshima/Nagasaki? That was deemed sufficient civilian sacrifice to bring to an end the war against Japan.

But nothing so grand as that would be needed in Israel. A tactical military defeat. Perhaps the forced evacuation of a few contentious settlements. Maybe resulting in a few Israeli deaths. Maybe in the capture of a few "prisoners of war" from those settlements, (which are illegal anyway) followed by their safe return in the event of a peace deal.

You've got to counter that with the calculation of how much Israeli blood and treasure is going to be spent following their current policy.

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

And many of those particular Jews, the ultra orthodox, are utterly opposed to the existence of Israel, regarding it as a blasphemy that a Jewish state be created before the arrival of the Messiah.

Zionism is a phenomenon which dates from the last years of the 19th century.

Glad to see your acknowledgement of the
few thousand years existence, and your
recognition and respect for the Ultra
Orthodox and Zionists.........
I was aware when Zionist ideas started
to flourish....
A noble and worthy movement, and an
inspiring focus for the survivors
of the Holocaust.

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

More informed than some.



No need to go down that road. Various people's potted history of Palestine has been aired so many times on this board. I think the Palestinians were far more sinned against than sinners in that conflict; you clearly don't. We won't convince each other on that score but that's not important.

I'm talking about learning lessons from a more recent conflict that may actually lead to peace in Israel.




What's a major massacre? Something on the scale of Hiroshima/Nagasaki? That was deemed sufficient civilian sacrifice to bring to an end the war against Japan.

But nothing so grand as that would be needed in Israel. A tactical military defeat. Perhaps the forced evacuation of a few contentious settlements. Maybe resulting in a few Israeli deaths. Maybe in the capture of a few "prisoners of war" from those settlements, (which are illegal anyway) followed by their safe return in the event of a peace deal.

You've got to counter that with the calculation of how much Israeli blood and treasure is going to be spent following their current policy.

So let's get this straight.
You want a peace deal - but only after a
'tactical military defeat' for Israel!!!!
And a few Israeli deaths....
As I said, considerable arrogance.....

I hope it keeps fine for you!!!!
Have you consulted or even considered
the varying views among Palestinians
and their Arab allies???
Or is this just off the top of your
head????

A 'few contentious settlements'???!!!!
You think they are 'gamechangers'????
That would tip the balance???
We've already established that Sinai was
handed back.
Handed back three times, in fact!!!!
Israel recognized the PLO, which had been
murdering Jews for over 30 years, as the
representatives of the Palestinian people.
They moved out of Gaza.
They would be willing to move out of
sections of the West Bank.
They agree to a 'two state' solution.
And everytime these concessions have only
been met with more violence.

Therefore, Israel's 'current policy', and
previous policies, have cost them much in
what you call 'blood and treasure'.

You make the case for an 'iron fist' better
than any hard line Israeli politician!!!!!!

MajorMax

Snickers Man wrote: »

Almost as if someone put chilli on his erogenous zones. [/QUOTE

Oh lord, it wasn't funny at the time....well it was a little funny....But looking back it's hilarious

MajorMax

depaly wrote: »

You're an extremely sensitive soul, if you think
that's 'barely supressed rage'!!!!!
I hope this posting does't hurt your
feelings, petal......

It's all the exclamation marks, it makes you seem like you're barely hanging on to your temper!!!!!!?!

Capt'n Midnight

How would the Egyptians have done if not ordered to advance ahead of the missile defence screen ?

Does the documentation reveal the Israeli thoughts on that matter ?


And relative to the events in Iraq what did it predict for the future of MBT's in terms of vulnerability in open country against well defended positions compared to their usefulness in other situations

Manic Moran

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How would the Egyptians have done if not ordered to advance ahead of the missile defence screen ?

It's a good question.

In reality, they'd have kept both banks of the Suez. Not because the Israelis would have been militarily unable to boot them out (Remember that the whole reason they advanced was to attempt to relieve pressure on the Syrians: If they had not, the Syrians would have been dealt with faster, thus allowing a later focusing on the Egyptians), but because the UN-imposed ceasefire would have still come down the line to freeze the positions before this could happen. Of course, this is said with the benefit of hindsight.

And relative to the events in Iraq what did it predict for the future of MBT's in terms of vulnerability in open country against well defended positions compared to their usefulness in other situations

It was the start of the Jeune Ecole for Land Warfare. There were predictions that the man-portable missile had declared the tank obsolete. (The same predictions which showed up with the advent of the anti-tank helicopter). Yet even by the end of the YK war, the Israelis were starting to develop counter-plans to deal with the missiles. Open country is still considered the better bet for tanks, at least as long as you have the technologically superior tanks.

NTM

Snickers Man

depaly wrote: »

So let's get this straight.
You want a peace deal - but only after a
'tactical military defeat' for Israel!!!!
And a few Israeli deaths....
As I said, considerable arrogance.....

It's not a case of what I want. I'm a pasty faced Irish Catholic. I don't have a dog in that hunt. I am sympathetic towards the plight of the Palestinians, who have suffered the most grevious wrongs in this whole story, but realise that a settlement which recognises Israel's right to exist is in everybody's long-term interest there.

Yet all supporters of Israel seem to talk about is how to justify the status quo of continuing suppression, expulsion and criminalisation as if world unanimity on their right to keep this nonsense up will do them any good in the long run.

They have to make a deal with the Palestinians and the Palestinians have to be strong enough to make that deal not look like a capitulation.

Ergo, Israel will have to lose a battle to win the war.

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

It's not a case of what I want. I'm a pasty faced Irish Catholic. I don't have a dog in that hunt. I am sympathetic towards the plight of the Palestinians, who have suffered the most grevious wrongs in this whole story, but realise that a settlement which recognises Israel's right to exist is in everybody's long-term interest there.

Yet all supporters of Israel seem to talk about is how to justify the status quo of continuing suppression, expulsion and criminalisation as if world unanimity on their right to keep this nonsense up will do them any good in the long run.

They have to make a deal with the Palestinians and the Palestinians have to be strong enough to make that deal not look like a capitulation.

Ergo, Israel will have to lose a battle to win the war.

'the status quo of continuing suppression,
expulsion and criminalisation....'

It's clearly all one way traffic in your mind!!!!!
There's a 'status quo' of attitudes and
actions among Palestinians ( and their allies )
that never seems to impinge on your
consciousness....

'as if world unanimity.....will do them any
good in the long run.'

That is the joke of the century!!!!!
I'm afraid that you're losing credibility
fast!!!!
Israel, and Jews worldwide, certainly do their
best - but the sheer weight of numbers means
that they'll never overcome global
anti Israel propaganda.

As in all facets of life, perhaps they should
just be true to themselves!!!!
I'm confident they will.
Able to defend themselves, but flexible when
peace talks come round.
Apart from the two sides that are immediately
involved, let the other begrudgers and haters
simmer and sulk on....
The bona fides of various Arab states and
European 'activists' are questionable,
to say the least.

You are obsessed with the idea that 'Israel will have
to lose a battle'.
It speaks volumes!!!!!!!

Snickers Man

I've made my case, repeatedly. Which is that this war is interminable because Israel wants it so and indeed, given its attitude, needs it to be so.

As indeed is this debate. I've made my case. Nothing to add. Let's pick it up again in 10 or 20 years when it will still be essentially the same.

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

I've made my case, repeatedly. Which is that this war is interminable because Israel wants it so and indeed, given its attitude, needs it to be so.

As indeed is this debate. I've made my case. Nothing to add. Let's pick it up again in 10 or 20 years when it will still be essentially the same.

'this war is interminable because Israel wants it so'

One would think that Israel was the only player
in this conflict!!!!!

Certainly you've had nothing to add to your
one way approach and closed mind during the
entire debate.

Still, I would agree that this debate has
largely been pointless.

Let's not pick it up again, as our views
will, in all likelihood, be essentially
the same!!!!!!!!!!!!

Molloys Clondalkin

Wow just wow this thread has gone from the first few posts to something that should be in politics!!!
Im new here but have a huge interest in Military history so much I went to Israel and did a jeep tour of the 73 war fronts (it was during the anniversery of '67 so had to get it in too)
I have some mazing photos of captured eygyptian hardware from a very private museam Id love to get up on the net too.
In terms of a military profile it was the worst action Israel ever took due to the fact Golda Meir refused to allow Elazar call up the full reserves he broke his orders and called up more than he was allowed.
If I can find it I wrote a paper on this war for my nephews history exam.
Went down very well.
and Id love to answer any questions people may have bar the stupid political ones just the military ones please for now.