Questions about the Yom Kippur War-1973 - Page 3

August 29th, 2012  
Originally Posted by VDKMS
You win a war if you accomplish your goals. The goal of the Egyptian forces was (according to you) to recapture lost land. At the end of the war only a small piece was recaptured but also lost a small piece of Egypt. Peace negotiations gave back the lost territories. It was a give and take thing from both sides.

We can argue about that indefinitely but fact is peace still exists in that part of the ME. A major accomplishment.
I said that? I said "Liberate the land GRADUALLY." and I did make it capital letters above. The Sinai wasn't going to be returned completely by military force due to lack of weaponry. On a wide level the war was made to move the situation politically Sadat used to say "Hold your grounds 10 centimeters east of the canal and let me do the rest." Also look at Egypt's military objectives according to Sadat on the 5th of October 1973. My source to you is from Brigadier Hassan Ahmed El-Rewany "on October 5, 1973 former president Sadat gave the decision for the crossing to proceed. He envisioned three main tasks, put an end to military stalemate by violating the cease-fire; inflict the gravest possible losses on Israel, in terms of personnel, armor and equipment; and finally work for the liberation of the occupied territories in successive phases, depending on the degree of success achieved. This was a political war to regain the lost territories, achieve Israeli recognition of Egyptian power, and attain peace in the region and not to destroy state of Israel. A secondary matter was to convince Israel and the world that Israel's military establishment was not invincible and its military achievements could not alone impose peace. Also, that Israel's natural or artificial obstacles would not provide security for the country." Here are the Egyptian goals. No Egyptian general ever said that Sinai was to be completely gained by force due to lack of weaponry. And if you look at the events, that's exactly what the Egyptians did and according to Henry Kissinger, "He told of his lonely decision making that led to the war, of his conclusion that there would never be a serious negotiation so long as Israel was able to equate security with military predominance. Now that he had vindicated Egyptian honor, Sadat told me, he had two objectives to: "regain my territory"(the 1967 boundary in the Sinai) and to make peace."
You said "At the end of the war only a small piece was recaptured but also lost a small piece of Egypt." Well...we go back to the beginning like that. Egypt gained territory east of the canal. And both the Second and Third Field Armies east of the canal remained strong. Even the surrounded Third Field Army held strong for the surprise of many including Egyptian generals themselves such as Shazly who described the situation to be a "catastrophe" and in fact acquired more land according to the Israeli source above (David Elazar). But, let's look at the Israelis west of the canal. Israel had to withdraw from the west as a result of MILITARY PRESSURE and their untenable situation west of the canal according to the sources I've mentioned above from both Egyptian (Abd El-Ghany El-Gamassy) and Israeli (Moshe Dayan) sources. And I don't remember if I said this before but Henry Kissinger also described this by saying "He [Sadat] and Golda both understood that the significant event would be the first major voluntary Israeli withdrawal in nearly 20 years." So, what the Israelis gained west of the canal didn't remain and they had to withdraw. But, if you look at the very final map, both the Second and Third Egyptian army remained on the east and Israel had to withdraw to the passes (40 kilometers from Egyptian forces).

EDIT: I forgot to reply to the ME peace thing that you said. One thing about the ME is that, the biggest issue isn't really Palestine and Israel. It's the Shia and the Sunni Muslims fighting and dictators coming to power. Examples would be Iraq determined to take back Kuwait as an Iraqi province. Iraqi-Iran war (Iraq is Sunni, Iran is Shia) and the massacres happening right now in Syria which if you look at it, is Shias and Sunnis fighting. It would be a major accomplishment if the ME becomes quiet but unfortunately, it won't be so easy because the ME is powerful. The ME got a lot of oil which is very essential today also the ME controls the oil market (Iran and the strait of Hormuz). Also, the ME is a very strategic location. I said before that Egyptian/Israeli peace is all well and good. But, this peace-treaty is very humiliating for the Egyptians and they won't live with that for so long. Look right now, the peace treaty of 1979 is on the line. Egypt has a huge amount of tanks in the Sinai and when Israel started talking about the peace treaty, Egypt put a whole bunch of SAM missile batteries. So, Egyptians are getting their things done in the Sinai after the massacre of 5 August 2012. A lot of Egyptians are praising the president for this. He put his troops in the Sinai and at the same time assuring Israel that the peace-treaty is good for both of us, it needs to be revised. If the peace treaty is revised and Egypt fully controls the Sinai that would be one of the most amazing subjects in the world.

Similar Topics
War is not about politics; itís about our future
Sometimes, Making Peace Means Making War
Animals in War Did you know.........?
Pearl Harbour one more lie?????