Yom Kippur War

BlaasForRafa

Today is the 37th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War waged on Israel by Egypt and Syria who were heavily supported by the Soviet Union and armed with the latest Soviet equipment. Egyptian forces crossed the Suez canal and advanced some 6 miles into the Sinai backed by 80k troops. Syrian forces advanced into the Golan heights and over the next 4 days several IDF brigades would fight to annihilation hold the Syrians while reserve forces assembled.

The Israelis were warned that arab forces would attack but their political, military and intelligence services didn't take the warnings seriously enough. Cabinet records published today give an indication of the disarray in the Israeli cabinet. This was pretty much known already but its interesting to have it confirmed and see what the individuals involved said.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/newly-released-documents-division-and-disarray-on-eve-of-yom-kippur-war-1.317381

October 6, 1973, Yom Kippur, 8:05 A.M.

Meir convened an emergency meeting in Tel Aviv with senior defense officials. Six hours before the outbreak of the war, Israeli preparations for a general offensive by Arab armies finally began. The warnings of the intelligence source were being taken seriously, as was the fact that the Russians were pulling families out of Egypt and Syria, a sign of approaching war. But U.S. intelligence was not predicting war.

Minister Yisrael Galili said a source had suggested the war could be prevented by leaking information that would reach the Egyptians and Syrians, so they would knew their plans for attack had been discovered.

Jordan also preoccupied those in attendance, because it wasn't clear if the kingdom would join in the assault on Israel.

Initially, Meir deliberated between Elazar's call for a full mobilization of the reserves and Dayan's request for a limited call-up.

"If you approve a major mobilization of the reserves, I won't resign," Dayan said. But with an eye to international reaction, he added, "A full mobilization before even one shot is fired - they will say right away that we are the aggressors."

At 9:20 A.M., a full mobilization was approved.

October 7, 1973

A discussion at the Prime Minister's Office centered on how to enlist American support at the United Nations and head off a cease-fire that would hurt Israel. Meir suggested putting together a list of requests.

The forum considered presenting U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger with a partial, distorted picture exaggerating Israel's poor situation to win the Nixon administration's support. Meir rejected the suggestion out of hand.

"We should telegraph him the details; he should get the real picture," she said. "We can't play hide and seek with him."

Minister Yisrael Galili asked in response, "Do we sell him the fact that we've moved out of the populated areas?" Meir replied, "I don't object to us saying, there's also risk to populated areas ... I want to give him the real picture. I'm not under the impression the

situation is doomed ... We should tell it to him convincingly. Tonight was a bad night."

11:50 P.M.

A meeting of the ministers with senior defense officials. Yitzhak Rabin returned from a tour of the southern front and told the meeting, "The whole issue of the dead and wounded is complicated. There are 400 wounded and 80 killed. [GOC Southern Command Shmuel] Gorodish estimates there will be 150 to 200 killed before the counteroffensive." Rabin said he had no information on Egyptian losses.

October 8, 7:50 P.M.

Maj. Gen. Haim Bar-Lev and minister Yigal Allon report to the prime minister after a tour of both fronts. The Israeli forces' situation is beginning to improve, while the enemy forces are beginning to suffer serious damage.

"What they achieved today as compared to yesterday is enormous," Allon said. "The front was breached yesterday. If the Syrians had been more daring, they'd have made significant gains."

Bar-Lev explained the Egyptian and Syrian successes as being partly due to technological superiority. "Both have the new Soviet tank plus infrared," he said. "They have an advantage there. On the first night we were surprised; we only knew they had it in theory ... Today we know about it and take it into account."

Manic Moran

Interesting info.

The 73 was is one of my favourites to study, I've made the Suez front required reading for my lieutenants.

NTM

Mahatma coat

Interesting,

When Israel Gets attacked first its
'A Sneaky Surprise Attack'

but when they Attack First its

' A Well executed PreEmptive Strike'

if it werent for Double Standards they'd have none at all.

old_aussie

Colonel Giora "Hawkeye" Epstein, one of Israels top fighter Aces.

Between October 18 and 20, 1973, he downed a Mi-8 helicopter and eight jets: two Sukhoi-7s, two Sukhoi-20s and four MiG 21s. Then, on October 24, 1973, Epstein downed three more MiG-21s west of the Great Bitter Lake

In one battle Epstein and his wingman were led into a trap when they chased 2 MiGs and were attacked by 12 MiGs that were so low as to not be seen by radar.

Epstein sent his wingman back to home base as he was low on fuel, Epstein took on the 12 MiGs and shot down 4 of them.

Nine of his victories came in an IAI Nesher, an Israeli-built version of the French Mirage V.

The Ofira Air Battle was one of the first air battles of the Yom Kippur War .

It took place on 6 October 1973, near Israeli Air Force Base Ofir at Sharm el-Sheikh, on the southern tip of theSinai Peninsula.

It involved two Israeli Phantoms and, according to the IAF pilots, 20 Egyptian Air ForceMiG17s and their eight MiG-21 escorts, on their way to attack Israeli positions in the area. By the end of the brief six-minute battle seven MiGs were confirmed to have been shot down. The remaining MiGs disengaged and the Israeli Jets returned to their base.

BlaasForRafa

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Interesting,

When Israel Gets attacked first its
'A Sneaky Surprise Attack'

but when they Attack First its

' A Well executed PreEmptive Strike'

if it werent for Double Standards they'd have none at all.

Give over with the usual anti-Israeli guff.

If you read the article the attack was hardly a surprise. If it wasn't for the court of public opinion then the Israelis could have gone ahead with a pre-emptive strike.

I'd guess that you'd be ok someone to attacking Israel but if Israel attacks then your up in arms like a good ol keyboard warrior.

NOGMaxpower

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Give over with the usual anti-Israeli guff.

If you read the article the attack was hardly a surprise. If it wasn't for the court of public opinion then the Israelis could have gone ahead with a pre-emptive strike.

I'd guess that you'd be ok someone to attacking Israel but if Israel attacks then your up in arms like a good ol keyboard warrior.

Your defense of Israel is just as bad. Its a well known fact Israel acts on double standards infact its one of their main policies they took from the Yanks - Say one thing and do another.

Israel knew well in advance of the pending military strike and were ready.

BlaasForRafa

NOGMaxpower wrote: »

Your defense of Israel is just as bad. Its a well known fact Israel acts on double standards infact its one of their main policies they took from the Yanks - Say one thing and do another.

Israel knew well in advance of the pending military strike and were ready.

I don't need to defend Israel, it is able to defend itself quite well, as indicated by its existence. If you had any clue of what actually happened during the Yom Kippur war then you'd know that although the high command had warning, both borders were relatively lightly defended because until the last minute the warnings weren't taken seriously.

If Israel was so ready why would they have only 2 understrength armoured brigades in the Golan to face 1500+ Syrian tanks? If they were so ready why would they only have less than 300 tanks and hardly any infantry in the Sinai? Think about what your posting before you actually post next time.

old_aussie

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If Israel was so ready why would they have only 2 understrength armoured brigades in the Golan to face 1500+ Syrian tanks? If they were so ready why would they only have less than 300 tanks and hardly any infantry in the Sinai? Think about what your posting before you actually post next time.

That's exactly right, if the Israeli's were ready why did they only have about 100 reserve tanks in the Golan area to defend against Syria.

Israel then sent another 200 "near battle ready" tanks and defended against 1500 "fully battle ready" Syrian tanks.

The dumbass Egyptian Air Force(nearly all planes) always went out on morning patrols and then returned to base "for morning tea" and to get their jets refulled. You'd think Egypt would only send a small section at a time on morning patrol, but no.

The Israeli Air Force wiped most of the Egyptian Air Force out as they sat on the ground.

Stovepipe

Old Aussie,
I suggest you refer to Osprey's Combat Aircraft #44 for a very good account of Arab MiG operations in the various wars.
regards
Stovepipe

BlaasForRafa

Stovepipe wrote: »

Old Aussie,
I suggest you refer to Osprey's Combat Aircraft #44 for a very good account of Arab MiG operations in the various wars.
regards
Stovepipe

And Aircraft of the Aces 59 and 60 which deal with Mirage, Nesher and Phantom aces of the IAF are good reads too.

old_aussie

Stovepipe wrote: »

Old Aussie,
I suggest you refer to Osprey's Combat Aircraft #44 for a very good account of Arab MiG operations in the various wars.
regards
Stovepipe

Can you provide an ebook link or buy the book and send it to me please.

Thanks

mcdoogle

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Interesting,

When Israel Gets attacked first its
'A Sneaky Surprise Attack'

but when they Attack First its

' A Well executed PreEmptive Strike'

if it werent for Double Standards they'd have none at all.

Reminds me of this clip - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEHcP7fSu80

From 09 min34 sec - 09 min 42 sec

Edit - not sure how to embed properly

BlaasForRafa

mcdoogle wrote: »

Reminds me of this clip -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEHcP7fSu80&feature=related

From 09 min34 sec - 09 min 42 sec

Edit - not sure how to embed properly

click the youtube symbol and just put in the bit after the = sign between the

things


Its hard to tell which video you might be referring to but the Golda Meir speech at the end of this video is very moving and sums up the spirit of the Israeli defence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzw2ff7b6zU

mcdoogle

Its hard to tell which video you might be referring to but the Golda Meir speech at the end of this video is very moving and sums up the spirit of the Israeli defence.

Slightly less highbrow that that......

depaly

It was mainly Egypt and Syria, but in fact the
soldiers and weaponry of six nations attacked
Israel in 1973!!!!

Regiments from Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco
were included in the attacking forces.

And Saddam Hussein sent a mechanised army to attack
Israel. The Israeli air force caught them on the road
and destroyed them.

It was a close run thing, but the Israelis bravely
won out.

Their tiny state is to be very much admired in so
many ways. Not least, in the way it has defended
itself again and again- and has every right to do so.

PatsytheNazi

old_aussie wrote: »

Colonel Giora "Hawkeye" Epstein, one of Israels top fighter Aces.

Between October 18 and 20, 1973, he downed a Mi-8 helicopter and eight jets: two Sukhoi-7s, two Sukhoi-20s and four MiG 21s. Then, on October 24, 1973, Epstein downed three more MiG-21s west of the Great Bitter Lake

In one battle Epstein and his wingman were led into a trap when they chased 2 MiGs and were attacked by 12 MiGs that were so low as to not be seen by radar.

Epstein sent his wingman back to home base as he was low on fuel, Epstein took on the 12 MiGs and shot down 4 of them.

Nine of his victories came in an IAI Nesher, an Israeli-built version of the French Mirage V.

The Ofira Air Battle was one of the first air battles of the Yom Kippur War.

It took place on 6 October 1973, near Israeli Air Force Base Ofir at Sharm el-Sheikh, on the southern tip of theSinai Peninsula.

It involved two Israeli Phantoms and, according to the IAF pilots, 20 Egyptian Air ForceMiG17s and their eight MiG-21 escorts, on their way to attack Israeli positions in the area. By the end of the brief six-minute battle seven MiGs were confirmed to have been shot down. The remaining MiGs disengaged and the Israeli Jets returned to their base.

" Epstein took on the 12 MiGs and shot down 4 of them......It involved two20 Egyptian Air ForceMiG17s and their eight MiG-21 escorts, on their way to attack Israeli positions in the area. By the end of the brief six-minute battle seven MiGs were confirmed to have been shot down Israeli Phantoms and, according to the IAF pilots, . "

No offence to mate, but sounds like porkies/black propaganda to me. A bit like they say, paper doesn't refuse ink.

Manic Moran

Not impossible. A single Phantom will carry eight missiles, ten if configured Air-Air. For the 2 vs 20, that could be ten long-range missiles hitting the MiGs before they even get to within visual of each other.

For the close-range deal, a good pilot will use the F-4's power to stay out of the MiG's envelope, and the Israelis were under less severe restrictions than the US was in Vietnam when it still had an excellent kill ratio. Especially when outnumbered to the extent that you're the only one on your side, that way you don't need to worry about identifying who that black speck is you're about to shoot at.

NTM

depaly

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

" Epstein took on the 12 MiGs and shot down 4 of them......It involved two20 Egyptian Air ForceMiG17s and their eight MiG-21 escorts, on their way to attack Israeli positions in the area. By the end of the brief six-minute battle seven MiGs were confirmed to have been shot down Israeli Phantoms and, according to the IAF pilots, . "

No offence to mate, but sounds like porkies/black propaganda to me. A bit like they say, paper doesn't refuse ink.

A Nazi should recognize lies and black propaganda!!!!
Of course, black propaganda can entail the denial
of truth, as well as the spreading of lies!!!!!!!

PatsytheNazi

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not impossible. A single Phantom will carry eight missiles, ten if configured Air-Air. For the 2 vs 20, that could be ten long-range missiles hitting the MiGs before they even get to within visual of each other.

For the close-range deal, a good pilot will use the F-4's power to stay out of the MiG's envelope, and the Israelis were under less severe restrictions than the US was in Vietnam when it still had an excellent kill ratio. Especially when outnumbered to the extent that you're the only one on your side, that way you don't need to worry about identifying who that black speck is you're about to shoot at.

NTM

Still skeptical. A bit like these stories you hear of one guy taking on 5/6 scummers in a street fight and sending them running. Possible in theory sure, but been done in reality.....porkie.

Manic Moran

Could have sworn I had seen such a fight on Youtube.

There is some precedent, though. In 1967 Richard Scheffert took on four MiG-17s and two MiG-21s in his F-8, an aircraft which was neither as powerful nor as well-armed as a Phantom. He had it out for over ten minutes before help showed up to finish the fight, a heck of a feat of military airmanship.

I change my figures though. The 2 vs 20 would have had up to 12 long-range missiles heading for the MiGs before they met, with another 8 short-ranged ones on the shoulder pylons.

NTM

PatsytheNazi

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not impossible. A single Phantom will carry eight missiles, ten if configured Air-Air. For the 2 vs 20, that could be ten long-range missiles hitting the MiGs before they even get to within visual of each other.

For the close-range deal, a good pilot will use the F-4's power to stay out of the MiG's envelope, and the Israelis were under less severe restrictions than the US was in Vietnam when it still had an excellent kill ratio. Especially when outnumbered to the extent that you're the only one on your side, that way you don't need to worry about identifying who that black speck is you're about to shoot at.

NTM

F-4 Phantom. So it was a case of an American military technology victory rather than an Israeli one........as usual :rolleyes: I don't know why the Israeli's pretend that their not an American state.

depaly

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

F-4 Phantom. So it was a case of an American military technology victory rather than an Israeli one........as usual :rolleyes: I don't know why the Israeli's pretend that their not an American state.

A clumsy smear by a Nazi!!!!
That wonderful military technology didn't
fly itself!!!!!!!!!
It required a courageous Israeli pilot....
I wonder how much American or European
military hardware is scattered among
countless countries around the world???
The American connection, especially since
1967 and 1973, is well known.
It obviously disappoints you!!!!!!!!
There are dozens of American companies
based in Ireland. Does that make it an
American state???

Mahatma coat

ah yes, those 'courageous' Israeli Pilots, are they the same ones that Fire their missiles at Schools & Hospitals??

BlaasForRafa

Mahatma coat wrote: »

ah yes, those 'courageous' Israeli Pilots, are they the same ones that Fire their missiles at Schools & Hospitals??

You ****ing idiot, you do realise that the Yom Kippur war was in 1973 and the battle cited was over an Israeli airfield and no schools and hospitals were involved?

Your stupid random anti-israeli driveby snark is not a worthwhile addition to this thread.

BlaasForRafa

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

F-4 Phantom. So it was a case of an American military technology victory rather than an Israeli one........as usual :rolleyes: I don't know why the Israeli's pretend that their not an American state.

So what if the Israeli's were flying american made planes. The IAF used mostly french aircraft until the early 70's (Mirages, Super Mysteres, Ouragans etc) and reverse-engineered french equipment (Neshers, Kfirs). The IAF took the best planes that it could from wherever it could get them.

If you any interest in actual knowledge about the IAF rather than pathetic slurs against them maybe you might know that the IAFs first fighter was ex-Nazi equipment, ME-109 airframes with Junkers Jumo engines put together in postwar Czechoslovakia.

BlaasForRafa

Manic Moran wrote: »

Could have sworn I had seen such a fight on Youtube.

There is some precedent, though. In 1967 Richard Scheffert took on four MiG-17s and two MiG-21s in his F-8, an aircraft which was neither as powerful nor as well-armed as a Phantom. He had it out for over ten minutes before help showed up to finish the fight, a heck of a feat of military airmanship.

I change my figures though. The 2 vs 20 would have had up to 12 long-range missiles heading for the MiGs before they met, with another 8 short-ranged ones on the shoulder pylons.

NTM

Most of the kills were against the bomb and rocket-carrying Mig-17s that were attacking the airfield. At least one of the victories was a gun kill at which the IAF (unlike a lot of other airforces) still trained extensively on.

Multiple kills in a mission have happened in many other circumstances, iirc Erich Rudorrfer is the highest all-time scorer for kills in one mission with 13 soviet planes in ww2

Manic Moran

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

F-4 Phantom. So it was a case of an American military technology victory rather than an Israeli one........as usual :rolleyes: I don't know why the Israeli's pretend that their not an American state.

OK, you get a week off for dragging a thread off-topic yet again.

But for the record, the Israelis are now capable of building pretty much everything they need, from small arms through tanks and artillery. Even airplanes, though for cost reasons they've chosen to buy of late. Helicopters are the notable exception. They also sell military equipment to the US, from small arms ammunition and missiles through electronics and UAVs.

BlaasforRafa wrote:

You ****ing idiot

And you get two weeks' holiday for that one.

Mahatma coat wrote:

ah yes, those 'courageous' Israeli Pilots, are they the same ones that Fire their missiles at Schools & Hospitals??

I don't recall the last time I gave an action against you, so just an infraction for being provocative on this occasion.

NTM

depaly

Mahatma coat wrote: »

ah yes, those 'courageous' Israeli Pilots, are they the same ones that Fire their missiles at Schools & Hospitals??

If you take the trouble to read the title
of the thread, you'll see that it's about
the Yom Kippur War.
A war that included arial battles, and the
participation of courageous pilots.
It must be crystal clear to everyone that
you could'nt resist the temptation to
articulate your current hang ups and
bitterness - yet it's hardly relevant
to this discussion.....

Manic Moran

OK, lads. Survival tip.

If a contentious post has already been acted upon by a moderator, drop it.

NTM

Snickers Man

One of the long-term results of the Yom Kippur War was the 1979 Camp David Peace deal between Egypt and Israel which saw Egypt give up its 30 year state of war with Israel in return for an Israeli evacuation from Sinai.

It's something the Middle East could learn from even today.

The hard nosed Israeli supporters will say this was because of yet another military defeat inflicted on Egypt by Israel but a more considered analysis is that it was the early Egyptian successes that gave Sadat the credibility and confidence he needed to make a "peace with honour".

The Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal was a masterpiece of military tactics and innovation. So too were the early tank battle victories in the Sinai. After the almost instantaneous defeat of three Arab armies in 1967, this was an important boost to Arab prestige and pride.

The Israelis were supposed to pursue a separate peace deal with the Palestinians as a result of Camp David but of course they've managed to avoid their responsibilities in that regard ever since.

The sad fact for Israel is that they are so good at fighting wars that they don't dare make peace.

They are now resigned to a permanent state of civil war with the erstwhile inhabitants of their land and wonder why their actions attract so much hostility from public opinion around the world.

Even on this thread there is a knee-jerk responder (temporarily banned, I believe. Hey. Happens to the best of us:) ) who accuses people of being "anti Israeli" as if that were some sort of crime in itself.

Reality check: Nobody likes you if you're very good at fighting.

When Germany had the most efficient, most modern and most successful army in Europe in the 1940s, everybody hated them.

When the Brits ruled half the world in the 19th century they had to stay in "Splendid Isolation" because nobody could stand the sight of them.

Today the Americans find it hard to make friends thanks to their military adventures in Asia and as for the Israelis.......

they think that by rocketing tower blocks in Gaza they can garner public support;

they think that by suddenly uprooting its few kibbutzes in the Gaza strip and retreating behind a security wall and threatening to shoot anything that approaches it, they will build a peaceful and secure neighbourly state.

They think that by bulldozing the homes of relatives of Palestinians who die while fighting Israelis they will suppress Palestinian identity.

The fools, the fools, the fools as a wise man once said in another time and place.

What Palestinian despair needs is a victory. Not an overwhelming, unconditional or Cartheginian one. Just enough to give them the confidence and pride they need to have the guts to make peace with Israel. And for Israel to realise that maybe there is a confident Palestinian state willing to live alongside them.

Perhaps the most pro-Israeli thing the west, especially the US, could do, is hold the Israelis down while the PAlestinians give them one good hard kick in the teeth.

That's all it would take.

It could work. What's the alternative? Another 50 years of rocketing tower blocks and wondering why they're so unpopular?

Could be worth a try.

depaly

Hi Snickers Man.

'Perhaps the most pro-Israeli thing the west, especially the US, could do,
is hold the Israelis down while the PAlestinians give them one good hard
kick in the teeth.'

What a strangely violent metaphor for someone who is
supposedly advocating a peace deal!!!!!!

It is perhaps apt that you singled out the Camp David
Peace Agreement.
Egypt, for the most part, has since kept to it's
side of the treaty.....
Palestinians have broken every deal
or agreement they ever made!!!!!!

Israel got it's usual answer when,
as you put it, 'it uprooted
its few kibbutzes in the Gaza strip'!!!!!!!

Despite your obvious admiration for Egypt's 'early
tank battle victories', I believe it's stretching it
just a little to talk about an 'important boost to
Arab prestige and pride'......
Especially as six Arab nations were about to suffer
defeat at the hands of Israel!!!!!!

Israel has had to be 'very good at fighting'.....
It's survival was, and is, at stake.

The Jews have a very small country, tiny in
comparison to the surrounding Arab states.
A country with many talents.
And they demand only to live peacefully.
They have the right and the ability to
defend themselves - and they always will.

If it comes to a new treaty, Israel will
make painful concessions - and stick to
them.
Unfortunately, the likes of Hamas and
Hizbollah will do their best to bring
everyone back to hatred and violence.
And those who hate Israel will dredge
up the usual excuses.......

However, sooner or later, they will all
face reality.... The state of Israel
is here to stay!!!!!!!!!

And good luck to them!!!!!!

Snickers Man

depaly wrote: »

Hi Snickers Man.

'Perhaps the most pro-Israeli thing the west, especially the US, could do,
is hold the Israelis down while the PAlestinians give them one good hard
kick in the teeth.'

What a strangely violent metaphor for someone who is
supposedly advocating a peace deal!!!!!!

What are you saying? "Gentlemen, we can't discuss war in here!!! This is the Military Forum!!" ?

depaly wrote:

Palestinians have broken every deal
or agreement they ever made!!!!!!

The Palestinian Authority has been undermined every step of its way by the hawks in Israel who, on the pretext of "fighting terROARRR" responded to every attack by Palestinian extremists by bombing and shooting Palestinian police barracks. Even, in fact epecially, in areas where the population was relatively peaceful as opposed to hotbeds of insurgency whence the original attacks might have come.

They expect a fully functioning Palestinian Authority to fight its war for them by chasing down the terrorists while at the same time making it clear that their most basic institutions only exist on Israeli sufferance.

Way to help develop cordial relations with a fully functioning neighbour state!

depaly wrote:

Israel got it's usual answer when,
as you put it, 'it uprooted
its few kibbutzes in the Gaza strip'!!!!!!!

And who's idea was that?

Why do you have such trouble getting the problem with that particular tactic? You should watch some Western Movies. Ones where the hero gets ordered about and says. "Put your gun down and I'll go. I'D LIKE IT TO BE MY IDEA"

Get it?

depaly wrote:

Despite your obvious admiration for Egypt's 'early
tank battle victories', I believe it's stretching it
just a little to talk about an 'important boost to
Arab prestige and pride'......
Especially as six Arab nations were about to suffer
defeat at the hands of Israel!!!!!!

Don't take my word for it. Read some of the Arab commentators of the time. Like Mohammed Heikal, the Egyptian Nasserist who became very critical of Sadat's peace overtures but put the context for the initiative squarely on the shoulders of the performance of the Egyptian army in 1973.

It doesn't take much to spin a plucky defeat into a moral victory. Everybody does it. Think back to the way the British view Dunkirk. Or the Irish view 1916. Heck, there's even a lot of Aussies who think they won at Gallipoli!!! Even those who know they didn't hark back to it as a glorious chapter in the development of their national identity.

Why not the Palestinians?

depaly wrote:

Israel has had to be 'very good at fighting'.....
It's survival was, and is, at stake.

The Jews have a very small country, tiny in
comparison to the surrounding Arab states.
A country with many talents.
And they demand only to live peacefully.
They have the right and the ability to
defend themselves - and they always will.

If it comes to a new treaty, Israel will
make painful concessions - and stick to
them.
Unfortunately, the likes of Hamas and
Hizbollah will do their best to bring
everyone back to hatred and violence.
And those who hate Israel will dredge
up the usual excuses.......

However, sooner or later, they will all
face reality.... The state of Israel
is here to stay!!!!!!!!!

And good luck to them!!!!!!

Yadda yadda yadda!!! What's your point? I agree the Israelis have a fantastic army. So what?

They can't achieve peace. They can achieve a fraught status quo maintained by having every man and most women in the army for most of their lives, and by occasionally visiting slaughter on the neighbouring Arabs but all that does is chop of one snake's head only to have another five or six hissing up to bite them again.

Try thinking outside the box.

What would satisfy the Palestinians? (or at least most of them) Maybe some semblance of a military victory on which could be based a state of their own in the West Bank and Gaza. That is ALL of the WEst Bank and Gaza. There's a few more kibbutzim that will have to be torn down but they should never have been built in the first place.

A unilaterally declared and delimited autonomous sector sketched out by the Israeli army ain't going to work. No more than its counterpart the Bantustans worked in South Africa or the Nazi "Ghetto" solution worked in Europe.

And for the same reasons.

You might say "Israel doesn't need to do this. It's got its army. And its Mossad. It can deal with any recalcitrant Arab in its own way (with or without using Irish passports)"

To which I would say that in the long run, time is against Israel. The womb will win that war like it wins most others in the end. And there are simply MORE Arabs than Israelis and always will be. When the strategic value of the region declines (and remember, PAlestine and Arabia was a place that none of the WEstern Powers gave a **** about from the end of the Crusades until the invention of the motor car) and Israel loses its main backer the US she had better have in place some functioning friendly neighbours who have more to lose from a war than to gain.

I'm thinking of their future, really I am.

Maybe they'd prefer it if it was their own idea......

Manic Moran

Don't take my word for it. Read some of the Arab commentators of the time. Like Mohammed Heikal, the Egyptian Nasserist who became very critical of Sadat's peace overtures but put the context for the initiative squarely on the shoulders of the performance of the Egyptian army in 1973

I'm going to side against you on this one.

It is certainly true that the initial crossing of the Suez was a remarkable feat which restored faith in Arab capabilities at arms. It is also certainly true that after the initial setbacks the Israelis wiped the floor with the Egyptians, and their entire Third Army existed upon the suffrance of the Israelis allowing supplies through their lines. However, when reflecting upon the entire war, the Arabs tended to focus primarily on their initial success (to include movie recreations of the event), and minimize that small little detail that they actually got their asses handed to them in the end. It is not unreasonable for that overall 'culture' (for lack of a better term) to want to ascribe follow-on events to things which went in their favour, and not to the fact that the Egyptians and Israelis both figured that they had better things to be spending money and effort on than staring each other down in the Sinai, the Egyptians because they just couldn't win for losing, and the Israelis because they didn't want to spend the resources.

NTM

depaly

Hi Snickers Man.

Your contributions are puzzling.
First it's all about peace deals.
Then it's getting a victory out of
a 'plucky defeat'.
Then 'maybe some semblance of a military victory'
would satisfy the Palestinians.
Then 'the womb will win the war'.......
'Straws' and 'clutching' are two words that are
coming to mind!!!!!!!!!
You seem to be desperately thinking of scenarios
that will fulfill your dreams of a
Palestinian/Arab victory....
Perhaps you yourself have watched too many
Western Movies!!!!
The wishes of bitter enemies don't make it so!!!!

This thread is ostensibly about the Yom Kippur War.
The Israelis showed what they were made of in 1973.
( As they did in 1948 and 1967 )
They have a hugely increased military capacity
today. Upsetting for their enemies, but true
nontheless!!!!

I believe you may be exaggerating when you
state that 'every man and most women' are in
the Army 'for most of their lives'......
'On call', perhaps??
I'm open to correction......

And forget the Western Powers!!!!
Palestine was a place that the Arabs didn't
give a **** about!!!!
Until the Jews wanted to set up a homeland
there, of course!!!!!!
Arabs were always more interested in 'driving
the Jews into the sea', than in compassion
for the needs of Palestinians.
As the decades since 1948 have proved!!!

Snickers Man

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm going to side against you on this one.

However, when reflecting upon the entire war, the Arabs tended to focus primarily on their initial success (to include movie recreations of the event), and minimize that small little detail that they actually got their asses handed to them in the end. It is not unreasonable for that overall 'culture' (for lack of a better term) to want to ascribe follow-on events to things which went in their favour,

There is nothing particularly "Arab" in that.

Who won, in the military sense, the battles in Dublin in Easter 1916?

Who won, in the military sense, the engagement at The Alamo in 1836?

Who won, in the military sense, the campaign in Gallipoli in 1915?

To name but three.

In each of these cases, it is the descendants of the people who "had their asses handed to them" who are revered by their countrymen. Have the Mexicans ever made a film about their great victory in San Antionio? I don't know the answer to this, however I suspect they haven't. But John Wayne has.

Will the British organise commemorations of their speedy and efficient suppression of an attack in their rear in 1916 as they were preparing for a titanic offensive on the Somme? Nope. But we will.

And every April thousands of Aussies and Kiwis traipse over to Anzac Cove for a dawn service to remember the date when their forebears launched an unprovoked attack on a country that had never done them any harm with the express purpose of capturing that country's capital and handing it over to its oldest and bitterest local rival.

The popular history of that campaign is so twisted that the captain of the Australian America's Cup sailing team once exhorted his crew to face up to adversity by citing Gallipoli. "Our blokes had their backs to the wall there too, but they won that one, didn't they?" (Check it out.)


It was sacrifices such as these that spurred people on to achieve their goals and to allow them the myth that their countrymen had earned it through their heroic sacrifice. The Palestinians are no different to anybody else. And the Egyptian efforts in Yom Kippur are just another example.

That one produced peace. The Palestinians will need their own version.

Snickers Man

depaly wrote: »

Hi Snickers Man.

Your contributions are puzzling.
First it's all about peace deals.
Then it's getting a victory out of
a 'plucky defeat'.
Then 'maybe some semblance of a military victory'
would satisfy the Palestinians.
Then 'the womb will win the war'.......
'Straws' and 'clutching' are two words that are
coming to mind!!!!!!!!!
You seem to be desperately thinking of scenarios
that will fulfill your dreams of a
Palestinian/Arab victory....
Perhaps you yourself have watched too many
Western Movies!!!!
The wishes of bitter enemies don't make it so!!!!

This thread is ostensibly about the Yom Kippur War.

If by "all about peace deals" you mean asking what can we learn from the consequences of the Yom Kippur War to apply to the current situation in the Middle East, then I think that is a perfectly fair question to ask in this thread.

If by "my dreams of a Palestinian/Arab victory" you mean how can we bring about a situation where an Israeli state can live in tolerant acceptance with its neighbouring Arabs including the Palestinians, ie the essential demand of the Zionists, then I think that is an Israeli victory more than it is a Palestinian settlement. Don't you?

If however you insist on seeing the entire Middle East question as being one of how long can Israel maintain its military superiority over its Arab neighbours then there is no question. Israel remains overwhelmingly superior. But I would argue, as indeed would many Israelis, that that is to confuse the problem with the solution.

Israel can send all the rockets and tanks and bombs into Gaza and Lebanon that it likes but all that means is that it will have to continue to do so interminably. With all the expense, debasement, loss of sympathy and paranoia that generates. A policy of perenially "handing their asses to" the Arabs only means that the next generation of Arabs will grow up to throw it back in their faces.

And so it will continue. They have the current solution: a strong army, continually at war. So what's the problem?

It's only if you see the desired solution as one where the Arab neighbours will not see the destruction of Israel as their only hope and that Israel can exist without having its entire male population spending a month in the army every year until the age of 55 (IN PEACE TIME) having already spent three years full time in uniform that you have to conclude that the current "solution" is in fact "the problem."

Think outside the box.

MajorMax

depaly wrote: »

Hi Snickers Man.

Your contributions are puzzling.
First it's all about peace deals.
Then it's getting a victory out of
a 'plucky defeat'.
Then 'maybe some semblance of a military victory'
would satisfy the Palestinians.
Then 'the womb will win the war'.......
'Straws' and 'clutching' are two words that are
coming to mind!!!!!!!!!
You seem to be desperately thinking of scenarios
that will fulfill your dreams of a
Palestinian/Arab victory....
Perhaps you yourself have watched too many
Western Movies!!!!
The wishes of bitter enemies don't make it so!!!!

This thread is ostensibly about the Yom Kippur War.
The Israelis showed what they were made of in 1973.
( As they did in 1948 and 1967 )
They have a hugely increased military capacity
today. Upsetting for their enemies, but true
nontheless!!!!

I believe you may be exaggerating when you
state that 'every man and most women' are in
the Army 'for most of their lives'......
'On call', perhaps??
I'm open to correction......

And forget the Western Powers!!!!
Palestine was a place that the Arabs didn't
give a **** about!!!!
Until the Jews wanted to set up a homeland
there, of course!!!!!!
Arabs were always more interested in 'driving
the Jews into the sea', than in compassion
for the needs of Palestinians.
As the decades since 1948 have proved!!!

That's beautiful man, it's like an angry poem, stanza after stanza of barely supressed rage. I love it! best comeback ever

Snickers Man

MajorMax wrote: »

That's beautiful man, it's like an angry poem, stanza after stanza of barely supressed rage. I love it! best comeback ever

Almost as if someone put chilli on his erogenous zones.

Manic Moran

Snickers Man wrote: »

There is nothing particularly "Arab" in that.

Who won, in the military sense, the battles in Dublin in Easter 1916?

Who won, in the military sense, the engagement at The Alamo in 1836?

Who won, in the military sense, the campaign in Gallipoli in 1915?

To name but three.

In each of these cases, it is the descendants of the people who "had their asses handed to them" who are revered by their countrymen. Have the Mexicans ever made a film about their great victory in San Antionio? I don't know the answer to this, however I suspect they haven't. But John Wayne has.

The very great problem with those analogies is that the results of those defeats was to redouble the (eventually successful) effort to bring an overall victory to the loser, and defeat of the people who just hammered the gallant martyrs. The result was not to encourage the people who just lost to bring peace, neither did the victors in those instances open up to negotiation. It took the War of Independence to do it for the first case, the capture of the Mexican President in the second case, and some two years of gradual Commonwealth military victories in the third case.

Your argument appears to be that the situation is reversed in the case of Yom Kippur, that the 'sue for peace' came from the Israeli initial loss, and long-term victory. If so, the ananolgies don't apply.

NTM

depaly

MajorMax wrote: »

That's beautiful man, it's like an angry poem, stanza after stanza of barely supressed rage. I love it! best comeback ever

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

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

Almost as if someone put chilli on his erogenous zones.

I already knew that you were obsessed with me,
but try and keep your focus off my erogenous
zones!!!!
Very creepy!!!!!!!!

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

There is nothing particularly "Arab" in that.

Who won, in the military sense, the battles in Dublin in Easter 1916?

Who won, in the military sense, the engagement at The Alamo in 1836?

Who won, in the military sense, the campaign in Gallipoli in 1915?

To name but three.

In each of these cases, it is the descendants of the people who "had their asses handed to them" who are revered by their countrymen. Have the Mexicans ever made a film about their great victory in San Antionio? I don't know the answer to this, however I suspect they haven't. But John Wayne has.

Will the British organise commemorations of their speedy and efficient suppression of an attack in their rear in 1916 as they were preparing for a titanic offensive on the Somme? Nope. But we will.

And every April thousands of Aussies and Kiwis traipse over to Anzac Cove for a dawn service to remember the date when their forebears launched an unprovoked attack on a country that had never done them any harm with the express purpose of capturing that country's capital and handing it over to its oldest and bitterest local rival.

The popular history of that campaign is so twisted that the captain of the Australian America's Cup sailing team once exhorted his crew to face up to adversity by citing Gallipoli. "Our blokes had their backs to the wall there too, but they won that one, didn't they?" (Check it out.)


It was sacrifices such as these that spurred people on to achieve their goals and to allow them the myth that their countrymen had earned it through their heroic sacrifice. The Palestinians are no different to anybody else. And the Egyptian efforts in Yom Kippur are just another example.

That one produced peace. The Palestinians will need their own version.

You're not seriously trying to tell us that
Egypt was any more keen to agree a peace deal
with Israel, because it had won an 'early
victory' or suffered a 'gallant defeat'
some years earlier???
And whether it's Ireland, Texas or Australia -
people will see what they want to see in terms
of their side or 'tribe'......
So what????

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

If by "all about peace deals" you mean asking what can we learn from the consequences of the Yom Kippur War to apply to the current situation in the Middle East, then I think that is a perfectly fair question to ask in this thread.

If by "my dreams of a Palestinian/Arab victory" you mean how can we bring about a situation where an Israeli state can live in tolerant acceptance with its neighbouring Arabs including the Palestinians, ie the essential demand of the Zionists, then I think that is an Israeli victory more than it is a Palestinian settlement. Don't you?

If however you insist on seeing the entire Middle East question as being one of how long can Israel maintain its military superiority over its Arab neighbours then there is no question. Israel remains overwhelmingly superior. But I would argue, as indeed would many Israelis, that that is to confuse the problem with the solution.

Israel can send all the rockets and tanks and bombs into Gaza and Lebanon that it likes but all that means is that it will have to continue to do so interminably. With all the expense, debasement, loss of sympathy and paranoia that generates. A policy of perenially "handing their asses to" the Arabs only means that the next generation of Arabs will grow up to throw it back in their faces.

And so it will continue. They have the current solution: a strong army, continually at war. So what's the problem?

It's only if you see the desired solution as one where the Arab neighbours will not see the destruction of Israel as their only hope and that Israel can exist without having its entire male population spending a month in the army every year until the age of 55 (IN PEACE TIME) having already spent three years full time in uniform that you have to conclude that the current "solution" is in fact "the problem."

Think outside the box.

I would have thought it obvious that Israel's
military is present, and willing to defend
itself, because of a real and consistent
threat.
If Hamas, Hizbollah and the other hate mongers
in the Middle East can finally reconcile
themselves to the existence of Israel - then
all things are possible.
It is these haters of Israel that need to
think outside the box, try some maturity for
a change, and learn to live with Israel.
The 'useful idiots' in Europe, who act as
cheerleaders for Arab extremism, do not
do them any favours......

Snickers Man

depaly wrote: »

I already knew that you were obsessed with me,
but try and keep your focus off my erogenous
zones!!!!
Very creepy!!!!!!!!

Me obsessed with you? Get over yerself! YOU replied to MY post in this forum, not the other way round.

And as for any interest in your genitalia: please rest assured that I have none. That cryptic comment was a reference to this charming vignette in another thread. I wasn't sure whether MajorMax was being sarcastic or not (still don't!) and looked at a few of his posts to get a flavour, as it were, of his opinions. But this one told me all I needed, or wanted, to know. :eek:

Now if HE took an interest in your erogenous zones, you'd have reason to worry!!!!

Snickers Man

depaly wrote: »

If Hamas, Hizbollah and the other hate mongers
in the Middle East can finally reconcile
themselves to the existence of Israel - then
all things are possible......

That's the rub. How do you get them to do that?

The current, and only foreseeable solution given Israel's attitude so far is to go on doing what it is doing, blitzing the hell out of the Palestinians, incessantly encroaching on their territory, forcing them out from one reservation to another and achieving feck all except a maintenance of the status quo which is a sullen, bloodied and beaten but unbowed Palestinian populace seething with resentment and quite prepared to die for the cause of grasping some dignity and honour back from the misery into which they have been thrust.

And if this is the only "solution" Israel wants to live by, it is the one she will eventually die by.

Some friend you are if you encourage them in it.

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

Me obsessed with you? Get over yerself! YOU replied to MY post in this forum, not the other way round.

And as for any interest in your genitalia: please rest assured that I have none. That cryptic comment was a reference to this charming vignette in another thread. I wasn't sure whether MajorMax was being sarcastic or not (still don't!) and looked at a few of his posts to get a flavour, as it were, of his opinions. But this one told me all I needed, or wanted, to know. :eek:

Now if HE took an interest in your erogenous zones, you'd have reason to worry!!!!

You sound highly indignant, perhaps naturally
so!!!!!
If you're not careful, Major Max will also be
impressed with your 'barely suppressed rage'!!!!

I accept your explanation, obviously.
If you care to look back, you will see that I
have been contributing on this thread from the
first page.
So don't flatter yourself that replying to your
post was anything out of the ordinary.

Try and relax.

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

That's the rub. How do you get them to do that?

The current, and only foreseeable solution given Israel's attitude so far is to go on doing what it is doing, blitzing the hell out of the Palestinians, incessantly encroaching on their territory, forcing them out from one reservation to another and achieving feck all except a maintenance of the status quo which is a sullen, bloodied and beaten but unbowed Palestinian populace seething with resentment and quite prepared to die for the cause of grasping some dignity and honour back from the misery into which they have been thrust.

And if this is the only "solution" Israel wants to live by, it is the one she will eventually die by.

Some friend you are if you encourage them in it.

All you seem to offer is a simplistic and hypercritical
verdict on Israel.
I don't have to 'encourage' them in anything!!
I know that there is much good, and much to be admired,
about Israel and it's people.
Their raison d'etre is not to 'blitz the hell out of
the Palestinians'.
They want to live in peace, and have a great country.
And want to have good relations with their Palestinian
neighbours and Arab citizens.
They are not the rampant evildoers that you want
everyone to think they are......

What is your point, exactly??

You clearly detest the very existence of Israel,
despite mealy mouthed talk about peace deals.
I notice that you nearly always conclude with
Israel being outbred, or 'dying', or defeated
'in the long run'.....
Wishful thinking, indeed.

I believe in fact that you feel as impotent
as the Palestinian masses, at the current state
of affairs.
So the best you can do is make sly, sullen and
erroneous comments on the 1973 war, and elaborate
with some anti Israel propaganda.

On mature reflection, you may realize that rewriting
( and predicting ) history is a lost and futile
cause!!!!

And if you were as willing to question the pernicious
presence of Hamas and Hizbollah ( and their Iranian
and Syrian paymasters ) as you are to condemn Israel -
then we might be getting somewhere!!!!!!!!

Capt'n Midnight

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

So what if the Israeli's were flying american made planes. The IAF used mostly french aircraft until the early 70's (Mirages, Super Mysteres, Ouragans etc) and reverse-engineered french equipment (Neshers, Kfirs). The IAF took the best planes that it could from wherever it could get them.

IIRC they didn't reverse engineer the planes, they stole the plans.

Also the IAF got it's hands on a B17 shortly after WWII , perhaps even before the neighbours had fighters that could keep up with it

alandublin15

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)

Snickers Man

depaly wrote: »

You clearly detest the very existence of Israel,
despite mealy mouthed talk about peace deals.

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.

depaly wrote:

Their raison d'etre is not to 'blitz the hell out of
the Palestinians'.

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.

I believe in fact that you feel as impotent
as the Palestinian masses, at the current state
of affairs.

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.

Snickers Man

Manic Moran wrote: »

The very great problem with those analogies is that the results of those defeats was to redouble the (eventually successful) effort to bring an overall victory to the loser, and defeat of the people who just hammered the gallant martyrs. The result was not to encourage the people who just lost to bring peace, neither did the victors in those instances open up to negotiation. It took the War of Independence to do it for the first case, the capture of the Mexican President in the second case, and some two years of gradual Commonwealth military victories in the third case.

Your argument appears to be that the situation is reversed in the case of Yom Kippur, that the 'sue for peace' came from the Israeli initial loss, and long-term victory. If so, the ananolgies don't apply.

NTM

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.