The Israeli Capture of Damascus, 1973

MacCaulay

Banned
So I'm reading The Yom Kippur War, by Simon Dunstan, and I noticed that if it weren't for the timely arrival of an Iraqi armoured force on the battlefield in Syria to basically waste the Israelis' time while they were being chewed up, Syrian and Jordanian forces could not have arrived in time to beat Israeli armour to Damascus during their counterattack out of the Golan.

So...what if the Iraqis hadn't been there, and the ugda had been able to drive to Damascus? Israel never liked giving things back, but I can't see them holding the Syrian capital for long.
 
So I'm reading The Yom Kippur War, by Simon Dunstan, and I noticed that if it weren't for the timely arrival of an Iraqi armoured force on the battlefield in Syria to basically waste the Israelis' time while they were being chewed up, Syrian and Jordanian forces could not have arrived in time to beat Israeli armour to Damascus during their counterattack out of the Golan.

So...what if the Iraqis hadn't been there, and the ugda had been able to drive to Damascus? Israel never liked giving things back, but I can't see them holding the Syrian capital for long.

They would use it as a pawn in the negotiations. Why would they try to keep it?
 
From what I know ab0ut it (which isn't really extensive to be honest though) the Isrealis feared Soviet intervention if they would go to far so to speak.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
I think diplomatic recognition is much more important at this stage than keeping a piece of land the Syrians would try to snatch every ten years...
I think the Israeli's at that point wouldn't really care what a bunch of Arabs would think, in exchange for a important area to defend Israel from and launch invasions if necessary into three neigbours. Plus they grow good apples.
 
I think the Israeli's at that point wouldn't really care what a bunch of Arabs would think, in exchange for a important area to defend Israel from and launch invasions if necessary into three neigbours. Plus they grow good apples.

Yeah. The big problem with the Golan is that it's a picturesque mountain range that just happens to be a great place to launch artillery rockets from; with the extra height, they can hit quite far into Israel.

As to Israel taking Damascus...not on a permanent basis. Not that they want it, anyway: Israel doesn't want to annex more Arabs. In fact, the main reason they annexed all the land in '49 and again in '67 (and the Sinai a couple times, though there's a little more to that story) was to have greater defensive depth. Honestly, Israel conquering Damascus is kinda like the United States conquering Mexico City: probably possible, but they'd have a hell of a time holding it, and why do they even want it?

At the most intrusive, they might attempt to install a puppet government, but they'd probably just give it back. I'm not even sure what they'd ask for in exchange, because the Israeli government trusts Syria about as much as they can throw it (which isn't very far considering it's a decent sized piece of land).

On the other hand, the Israeli's ass-kicking of Syria might prevent the latter from trying to puppet Lebanon when the civil war comes up, which will later allow the Israeli-backed Christian militias to overcome the (not Syrian back in this timeline) PLA, leading to shorter Lebanese Civil War, with Lebanon ending up as an Israeli ally/puppet - possibly with Israeli occupation in some of the south.
 
Assuming that they somehow manage to capture Damascus, they are going to have to give it back when the cease fire comes into effect and go back to the original lines, just like both sides did in reality. If they fail to do this, then the soviets will intervene, and they'll get kicked out. The Israelis know this, so they won't try and keep it.
 
I thought the Israelis actually discussed taking Damascus and decided not to do so or try to do so.

Males sense. Not only would capturing Damascus be a major escalation of the war trying to take the city could cost the Israelis thousands of soldiers in costly street fighting.
 
Well, they could do what Sharon did in Beirut in '82: Cut off the water supply and pound it into submission with air and armor.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
They were not only wary of Soviet intervention, but they couldn't fathom how to control a city of a million very angry Arabs with a force of a few tens of thousands of men, while still effective Syrian, Jordanian and Iraqi forces were lurking about. The population of Damascus by itself was probably about half the total population of Israel, after all.
 
Last edited:
It was clearly signaled to the US that if Israel took the Syrian Capital then Russia would land troops in Syria and move to pressure the Israelis out.Thus there would be a super power involvement of major propotions not just supplying arms to either side.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Well, they could do what Sharon did in Beirut in '82: Cut off the water supply and pound it into submission with air and armor.

To be fair, Beirut was essentially a bombed-out wasteland by the time the Israelis got there.

Well, then that would give the IAF and what little tube artillery the Israelis have a fair amount of targets. Of course, it would also be the thing that nails them down while the Jordanians and Iraqis get there. That's assuming, of course, that the Jordanians and Iraqis make any difference.

The Iraqi force were literally speedbumps on the road to Damascus in '73, and the Jordanians couldn't do a whole lot because of time constraints.
 
So I'm reading The Yom Kippur War, by Simon Dunstan, and I noticed that if it weren't for the timely arrival of an Iraqi armoured force on the battlefield in Syria to basically waste the Israelis' time while they were being chewed up, Syrian and Jordanian forces could not have arrived in time to beat Israeli armour to Damascus during their counterattack out of the Golan.

So...what if the Iraqis hadn't been there, and the ugda had been able to drive to Damascus? Israel never liked giving things back, but I can't see them holding the Syrian capital for long.

I doubt that the IDF would have wanted to take Damascus, even if given the opportunity. The closely packed streets of the city would have been a death trap and a pain to occupy. At most the Israelis would have placed Damascus under siege with a view of using it as a pawn in the peace talks.
 

Ak-84

Banned
The Israelis were pretty much exhausted, at the time of the final ceasefire, the Syrians were planning a major counteroffensive for the next day.

An attack on Damascus with major intact Syrian formations, well a lot like what happened to the ar,oured brigades in the south.
 
That would be an ugly occupation, but they could use it to force Syria to cede Golan to Israel. But, if they did take Damascus, wouldn't the war threaten to spiral out of control. The Soviets might try something clandestant.
 
no way the Israelis go in to the city. Get close enough to keep it & any major roads/RRs in to the city under artillery fire if desired - semi siege.
 
Top