Israeli Suez Canal

Twice, in 1956 and 1967, Israel over ran the Egyptians in the Sinai Peninsula, in 1974 the Egyptians barely made it into the Sinai, and where cut off as the Israelis crossed into Africa in the North and South, so is there are POD were all of the Suez Canal zone would be under for a long term the power of Israel? and what would the world look like if Israel controlled all of the Sinai Peninsula plus the Suez Canal zone from 1956, 1967 or 1974 through to today?
 
Twice, in 1956 and 1967, Israel over ran the Egyptians in the Sinai Peninsula, in 1974 the Egyptians barely made it into the Sinai, and where cut off as the Israelis crossed into Africa in the North and South, so is there are POD were all of the Suez Canal zone would be under for a long term the power of Israel? and what would the world look like if Israel controlled all of the Sinai Peninsula plus the Suez Canal zone from 1956, 1967 or 1974 through to today?

By "1974," I assume you mean the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

For this you would have to get rid of international pressure against Israel to give up the peninsula. My Jewish friend once told me that the real reason that the Israelis gave it up was that they wanted to make sure that there weren't too many Muslims in Israel, though I'm not sure how true this is.

Israel controlling it after Yom Kippur might spark another Egyptian attempt to invade in the late 1970s. Don't consider this ASB; the Arabs performed better in 1973 than they had previously and Egypt might try to do the same thing that they had done in 1970: fight a war they know they will lose in the hopes of acquiring military support from the USSR.

By controlling the Suez, Israel will naturally have more international "leverage" and thus be less susceptible to foreign diplomatic pressure.
 
By "1974," I assume you mean the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

For this you would have to get rid of international pressure against Israel to give up the peninsula. My Jewish friend once told me that the real reason that the Israelis gave it up was that they wanted to make sure that there weren't too many Muslims in Israel, though I'm not sure how true this is.


yes I most be losing it, I mean the Yom Kippur War

as for "too many Muslims" they held it all from 1967 till 1975 and most of it till 1979 and only gave up the last bit in 1982 with a number of settlements being forcefully pulled down by the Army:

history-of-israel2.gif


today I think there is only about a million people there so 30-40 years ago there were damn few people
 
yes I most be losing it, I mean the Yom Kippur War

as for "too many Muslims" they held it all from 1967 till 1975 and most of it till 1979 and only gave up the last bit in 1982 with a number of settlements being forcefully pulled down by the Army:

history-of-israel2.gif


today I think there is only about a million people there so 30-40 years ago there were damn few people

Actually, the modern population of the peninsula is only about 500,000.
 
Actually, the modern population of the peninsula is only about 500,000.

really? hm, I had a devil of a time finding population numbers, but clearly the population wouldn't be a big issue for the Israelis, much less an issue than say the West Bank has been.
 
The problem is, while the Sinai is sparsely populated, the Suez canal is where the major population zone of Egypt begins. Annex the Suez and enough land on the western bank of it to secure it (say 10 miles), and you gain over a million more Muslims (going off and educated guess here). Combine that with the harsh international reaction that would come from an action like this, and it seems like its much more trouble then it is worth for Israel.
 
The problem is, while the Sinai is sparsely populated, the Suez canal is where the major population zone of Egypt begins. Annex the Suez and enough land on the western bank of it to secure it (say 10 miles), and you gain over a million more Muslims (going off and educated guess here). Combine that with the harsh international reaction that would come from an action like this, and it seems like its much more trouble then it is worth for Israel.

They don't need to secure the whole thing, just one bank. That would give them the leverage, would it not?
 
The problem is, while the Sinai is sparsely populated, the Suez canal is where the major population zone of Egypt begins. Annex the Suez and enough land on the western bank of it to secure it (say 10 miles), and you gain over a million more Muslims (going off and educated guess here). Combine that with the harsh international reaction that would come from an action like this, and it seems like its much more trouble then it is worth for Israel.

Agreed. Although, seeing Israel's previous behavior, might have simply expelled those Arabs and called it retribution for the Arab Jews expelled from Egypt post-1948.

That being said, it would be basically impossible for Israel to hold that much territory long-term. It would require massive garrisons on both its Syrian and Egyptian borders, which would logistically stretch the IDF far too much. Unless Israel got creative with the Palestinians (made them citizens, or ethnically cleansed them from the West Bank into an Israeli client state of Palestine, set up in the territory of Jordan), they would be far too stretch in numbers to hold that territory.

As well, during the Suez Crisis, the Soviets threatened that if the Anglo-Franco-Israeli coalition didn't leave Egypt, nuclear weapons would be used. So the USA made them leave. Israel would NEVER be allowed to hold onto the canal with the Brits and French, let alone by themselves. This is ASB.
 

Cook

Banned
Agreed. Although, seeing Israel's previous behavior, might have simply expelled those Arabs and called it retribution for the Arab Jews expelled from Egypt post-1948.

That being said, it would be basically impossible for Israel to hold that much territory long-term. It would require massive garrisons on both its Syrian and Egyptian borders, which would logistically stretch the IDF far too much. Unless Israel got creative with the Palestinians (made them citizens, or ethnically cleansed them from the West Bank into an Israeli client state of Palestine, set up in the territory of Jordan), they would be far too stretch in numbers to hold that territory.

Israel held the Sinai for eleven years without doing any of these things and without any significant difficulties so the basis of your argument is somewhat questionable.
As well, during the Suez Crisis, the Soviets threatened that if the Anglo-Franco-Israeli coalition didn't leave Egypt, nuclear weapons would be used. So the USA made them leave. Israel would NEVER be allowed to hold onto the canal with the Brits and French, let alone by themselves. This is ASB.

No threats were made by the Soviets during the Suez Crisis.
 
Top