The Impact of Arab Israel War in 1973 on Political Objectives of the Principle Participants - Essay Example

?To what extent did the outcome of Arab Israel War in 1973 serve the political objectives of the principle participants? Introduction: The Middle East and Western part of Asia has been a place and point of attention for last five decades. It is due to the strained relationship between the Arab states and Israel that is the lone Jewish state in that region. As a result of the animosity that is persistently found amongst them; number of wars have been fought throughout their short lived history of fifty years. 1948 war, 1967’s affair were two similar accounts and events based on the same feeling of hatred. 1973 affair was one similar conflict yet far greater in magnitude. Also dubbed as the Yom Kippur war and war that was fought in the Holy Month of Ramadan as per Islamic Calendar (White 2012 ), thereby it was significant not just on account of political rivalry but it also had the share and touch of religious affiliations from both ends. It did not engulf just Israel and Palestine alone, rather it entangled other neighboring parts as well, namely Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Although numerous other wars have been fought before and after as well, yet it is considered to be one of the greater events of war being fought after the Second World War, based on the reason that it entangled a complete region and the other world powers as well. Keywords: Golan Heights, oil embargo, Suez Canal, military might myth, bi polar world. Thesis statement: A war that was won on field by Israel, yet by Egypt and its allies on political table, setting course for new diplomatic relationships, political domination and new alliances, and ultimately further increasing the importance of the Arab region in the world. Impact of the war: The war being fought in October 1973, had long term repercussions, it had its impacts on the geopolitical dimension, the regional peace, the coexistence with one another, the territories re distribution, the role of each of the participant and various other factors, in short, the war that lasted n more than a few weeks had its impact over the next many years to come. The cause of the war was the hostility between the two sides, with the Arab bloc blaming Israel for taking the places that originally belonged to the Arab States. To settle the scores once for all, the states decided to launch a decisive offensive against the common enemy. Major players and their concerns: The war had direct participants in form of Egypt that had its horns locked with Israel over the Suez Canal; Palestine though did not participate directly, yet it had their issues based on the holy land of Jerusalem which was long being claimed as the place of their religious affiliation by the both sides. Syria had its interest locked in form of Golan Heights (Dunstan 2007, 21). Hence the major players were Israel, Syria and Egypt. The main disagreement arouse from the 1967 war (The Six Days war) which had left Israel single handed winner against the Arab states. Aiming to level the score, Egypt and Syria had planned surprise attack against Israel catching it off guard. The element of Cold War: Although the war directly involved Arab states and Israel, yet it had its roots deeply drawn in the external agents. These external agents came in form of the two super powers of the then bi-polar world that was visibly divided into the Capitalist bloc and the Soviet Union’s Socialist bloc (Garthoff 2001, 326). The cold war that started off right after the end of Second World War was an unconventional war where the battles were not fought head to head, rather through proxies and establishment of alliances and allies in different parts of the world. The Arab world was also part of the same world and hence was under the direct interest and focus of the two super powers. Israel had the backing of Capitalist state America, and Arab States, and the Arab bloc, and most dominantly Egypt had the shoulder and support of Soviet Republic over it. The associated was not just limited to backdoor diplomacy and assistance, rather officially declared ties, military alliance and assistance and cooperation. Hence both the world powers had their vested interests from the loggerhead scenario that had prevail in form of the Arab Israel war in 1973. Brief description of the course of war: The war started off with attack and offensive launched by Egypt on Israel, which was parallel aided by Syria. Although the two sides had bitter feelings amongst them and their diplomatic ties were cut off, yet Israel did not expect the military offensive unleashing on it from Egypt. The outcome: In the three weeks war, Israel had overcome the opposition, and stood as the winner against the combined group of Arab states, yet its impacts were far flung. It did shake Israeli government and its people considerably. The surprise came along based on multiple factors. The extent to which the offensive was undertaken, the element of surprise, the manner in which they were forced into the war, the threat of a consistent enemy in form of the entire Arab bloc and the vendetta that may rise up again with regard to vengeance as a result of defeat suffered. The overall affair did shake Israel over the support of U.S.S.R for the Arab states (Newman and Peters 2013,86). The multiple faces of the outcome of the war: The war’s end can be measured in multiple magnitudes, it may be measured through the psychological damage inflicted, or through the military domination and lands annexed, and it may be measured from the political view point. In this war the Arabs may have lost the final military battle, yet they came up successful in the political spectrum as well as the psychological spectrum, removing the myth that the state of Israel could never be defeated, plus creating fears in the heart of Israel army and its people that they had a persistent threat against them in form of Arab nations, their oil strength. Positives deduced by Israel: Although Israel did suffer early loses and this was due to the fact that it was caught off guard, secondly the attacks were multi prong and from two nations at the same time (Sandler 2002, 641), yet it managed to tackled the multiple enemies at one time, showing of its strength and capabilities in the military field. One report states that out of the total losses incurred in the domain of air force and jets, half of them came in the first three days, showing the intensity of the attacks and the ill preparedness of Israel. The hiccups suffered allowed Israel air force and military assessing its capabilities and further strengthening its air strikes capability. Afterwards, for greater part of 20th century Israel relied on air force to counter the combined enemy and this gave it an edge since the Arab states lacked solid air defense mechanism. The Tag of Un vanquish able being lost: Prior to the War, a constant fear persisted in the minds and hearts of Arab states over the strength possessed by Israel. The outcome of the war, although on the outer face of it gave Israel the victory, yet it brought it down in its supremacy, it enabled Arab nationalistic states building their armies with hopes of defeating them in longer run. Such traces of similar attempts were seen long and later in case of Israel and Lebanon Conflict early in the 20th century when the two went to war and the war continued for nearly a month and despite the fact that Israel possessed the state of the art technology and weapons, yet the unmatched Lebanese army and Jihad factions gave them a fight and stood against them for more than three weeks. This might never had been possible had it not been for the Arab Israel War in 1973. In short, the Arab states started deriving the motivation and encouragement from this war and enabled them standing against the much greater and much stronger enemy and its army. Other impacts it had on Jewish mindset was the need for ever alertness against the enemy. They could not tolerate any other offensive being launched against them and they had to equip and embrace themselves for bigger and better challenges that may have been in offing. They had to thereby strengthen the field and facet of nuclear capabilities. The use of nuclear weapons might not had been an option, yet its sole ownership and possession has and had a psychological impact on the enemy even if they are far more and greater in number, thereby Israel went on to enhance its nuclear capabilities and for this purpose, it extended its cooperation with United States of America to further solidify its nuclear arsenal capabilities. The tag of being invincible was lost by Israel. The Six days war that was fought in 1967 had done damage to the moral and motivation of the Arab world and more specifically the Palestinians. They in contrast, derived juice and encouragement from this affair and started grouping up against the enemy and strengthened their ranks further. Israel & United States of America Nexus: Israel started to rely further on United States of America that had helped it in the war that was fought by the Arabs front door and by the Socialist U.S.S.R from back end. Internal change in the political pillar of Israel in the Post war scenario: Since Israel had suffered early losses and to some opinions, it appeared as if Israel might kneel before the combined enemy any time soon, this did not go too well with the people back home, as a result of the internal uproar against the losses suffered, inquiries were being conducted and call for revamping of army and air force was made, the incumbent government of Golda Meir was dissolved based on the resentment that was found in the ranks against the war policy and the lack of awareness and alertness over the possible attack launching by the Arab States. The sacking of Golda Meir government allowed Yitzhak Rabin to come to power and prepare a new strategy that was based on impregnable military might which would deal with the enemy in a more effective way in times to come. Arab Perspective: Bringing the Arab States further closer: Though Arab states did suffer losses, yet they had realized if they wanted their terms dictated, and their region being ruled by their say, it would be possible only through one way, and that was to stand united against the common enemy- Israel. They knew for sure, the future outlook would be a similarly encouraging one if and only if they stood hand in hand against Israel. This helped them joining heads on military front and allowed them exchanging military expertise, ammunition and arsenal. Apart from the military partnership, they were further strengthened into a bond and relationship of social solidarity. They all celebrated the outcome of the war in a positive way and deducted common positives. They further grew stronger and collective with regard to the raising of the voice against Israel who was still occupant on the occupied territories in numerous parts of Arab world. The war gave them a platform for raising their voice in a collective manner against the enemy on international platforms such as United Nations, European Union and Other Western Platforms, and each supported one another’s cause in total unanimity. Post war territorial settlements: Through the good offices and negotiations held under the auspices of United States, Egypt desired taking control of pasts of Suez Canal, and Henry Kissinger played a vital role and made sure Israel goes back to the inland areas of Suez Canal for normalcy of situation. By the end of the war, the Golan Heights that had been captured were returned to Syria under the guidance of United Nations and America as the direct mediator. Egypt got control of parts of the Red sea and the rich Sinai (Tucker 2010, 406) oil fields which were vital for the developing economy of Egypt. Israel also agreed to the condition of pulling back its troops from Sinai that had been deployed in the war. Jordan’s case: Although Jordan was not involved directly in the military offensive, but since it shares borders with the main players of the 1973 war, therefore it had a direct impact on the activities that were taking place in the region. Jordan had suffered in terms of the refugees that had settled on its land after the 1967 war, in times ahead the two states decided to come to terms on table and in 1994 a peace accord was signed between the two states, and it was again under the auspices of United States of America. The Oil Embargo: Having gained much impetus from the 1973 conflict, Arab states this time decided to go about an offensive in a covert way, through economic measures and means. It decided to use the naturally gifted natural resource of oil as a tool and weapon against the enemy. The tool would be used against the Western world and more prominently the capitalist partners and states that were in direct cordial relationship with Israel (Crane, Goldthou and Johnson 2009, 27). Oil prices were soured up by multiple hundred digits and this resulted in overall crisis in the work oil market, making the West realize the importance of Arab Israel conflict and its subsequent resolution. Restoration of Pride: While one facet may be derived in the form that the Arab states had fair bit of idea about the military might of Israel and they would have assessed and pondered over the thought of defeat, despite that they went into the war which means they may have had internal and subverted motives attached to it. This can be in form of the restoration of the lost pride during the 1967 Six Days war where the Arabs were beaten terribly and their lands occupied. Since the force and might of two sides was of total un match, it may had been move based on bringing down the influence of Israel in the region, restoring the lost pride and paving a way for Palestine state and negotiations with Israel. Egypt’s stance and standing: Egypt being the direct striker of the war who initiated the war against Israel had major impact on it after the war. Initially it was the promoter and supporter of oil embargo but in times ahead it had to soften its stance over the relationship with Israel. Egypt also enrolled itself into stronger defense ties with U.S.S.R. This gave rise to an unhealthy arms race and millions of dollars being spent in purchase of arms and state of the art machinery which would otherwise be spent on other sectors such as economic uplift, social development and poverty eradication. Right after the war and after the mediation by the super powers from either end, the agreements and armistice was made and both sides had to agree to them and midway retreat to find peaceful ending. Road towards dialogue: The Arab Israel war of 1973 can be easily termed as the brainchild of Egypt and its premier Anwar Saddat. It was not just to avenge Israel over the lands occupied; rather the offensive had long political, social and regional repercussions and aims against it. The first and foremost was to bring Israel to dialogue and discussion over the contentious issues. Making it realize that war was not the solution and it had to resort to dialogue with the neighbors since denying and staying in a complete isolation and hostility with neighbors for ever is not possible. It was an indirect obliging attempt to bring Israel to the table which was otherwise not ready to discuss any kind of settlement whatsoever. It was courtesy United States of America and the good counseling and diplomatic efforts of Henry Kissinger who enabled melting the ice and fostered a way for ties between the two states. This was formally initiated with a visit by the Egyptian President to Israel in 1977. This move came as a total surprise to many observers and experts of history and politics yet it paved way for the dynamic and relatively less hostile relations in times to come. Camp David Accord: Camp David Accord was part of the entire peace process that was initiated in 1978, and set into force in mid 1979; it set foundations for the future dialogue and discussions about resolving the issues and preventing any similar war from taking place again. The representatives were Anwar Saddat from Egypt’s side and Menachem Begin of Israel, agreement was reached through the facilitation of United States and Camp David is United States President’s resort of vacation where this meeting and agreement took place. Jimmy Carter was the mediator and guarantor of the peace agreement between the two states and through his efforts this action came into force. The main element of Camp David Agreement: Under this agreement, Egypt gave up any hostile intentions towards Israel, Israel in return agreed to return parts of Sinai and the withdrawal of its influence and troops took place in a period of around three and a half years. The peace settlement between the two states was not taken too well by other Arab states, yet Egypt for good eliminated any chances of war against Israel. A major element of the treaty and accord was a road map devising for solution of the Palestine issue, the issue of territories occupied by Israel, and intentions and spirit was shown for the plan formulation of withdrawal of troops from Palestine occupied territories, however the plans were never materialized and even two decades after the agreements took place, the Palestinians live as refugees in their country. Saadat however did not receive complete acknowledgment for these acts and he had to lose his life based on the resentment of one of his own army’s solider who opened fire on him in the parade. The Peace Treaty (1979): It can be easily said that without this war, the peace treaty that took place between Israel and Egypt in later years (1979) would not be possible. Since both had exhausted the option of war against one another. As a result of this treaty, the major threat of any other major war was overturned, since Egypt had always played an influential role in the war and dealings with Israel. The Egyptian President was rightly marked to have said that it was Egypt that decided both the peace and war with Israel over the Arab conflict. This was followed by the initiation of the diplomatic ties through the opening of embassies in respective countries. This action took place in 1980. Despite the peace agreement between the two, a mid way path has been adopted by Egypt for the restoration of the ties in social front and in military and diplomatic circle. Some experts call this settlement as the “Cold peace” that exists between the two countries that have prevented themselves from engaging into any kind of war ever since 1973, yet they do not enjoy full fledged diplomatic or socio economic ties. This can be easily interpreted by the level of trade that exists between the two states. For example the annual trade that takes place between the given states is roughly around 160 to 170 million dollars, this despite the fact that both are rich in numerous natural resources and can capitalize on exchange of goods and trade. Palestine’ case and condition: Although Palestine forces did not participate actively in the 1973 affair yet, Palestine was the direct party involved and it has shared the problem with Israel since inception. It is these two states that are engaged in a battle and every in 21st century, their disputes stand unresolved. The war had an impact on their thinking and policy for future as well. The war enabled strengthening of the P.L.O, an organization that was established for the sole reason of unifying the Palestinians under one banner and liberating the places and holy shrines that had been taken by Israel during the course of thirty years. It initiated a formally organized military like training and recruiting that was aimed to attack the Jewish state at whatever stage and in whatever way possible. The impact of the war bore fruits later in 1990s when a cease fire and peace treaty was signed between Palestine and Israel in 1993. Under this treaty, Israel recognized Palestine’s existence in the settled areas. This was termed as the Limited grant of autonomy to Palestine by Israel. Formally this agreement came under the Oslo accord. Arms race initiation: Both the parties and its members engaged in gathering state of the art arms, Syria also joined hands with its allies and U.S.S.R was the major donor of the arms and weapons and this was done through the multi billion dollars agreements between the two sides. The same went for Israel that further enhanced its defense through the collaboration of United States of America. Short term to midterm to long term impacts: In short term, Israel was rattled, Egypt came up as a force in Arab region, in midterm the impact of Egypt’s threat towards Israel was neutralized through the help of United States of America in form of peace and diplomatic ties restoration, in longer term, Israel earned back its ground, say and dominance and four decades past the event, Israel finds no match for its might in technology, military and other fields from its rival states in Arab region. With the disintegration of the U.S.S.R, the dynamics of the Arab’s backing by a super power also diminished and Israel got the direct backing of the lone super power in form of United States of America. This was the midterm change in the political spectrum of relationships and dominance of Israel over the Arabs. From Palestine’s perspective, in short term it lead the world’s attention towards the need for resolution of the long awaited issue of Palestine, however with passage of time, the issue went into the back scene and even in 2013, the problem remains as it was before and during the Arab- Israel war in 1973. Present day scenario: Four decades since the war was fought, the dynamics stand in the favor of Israel. Israel is the sole atomic power( though un declared) amongst the Arab states, Palestine has parts of its territories still occupied, and its status under the U.N remains as that of de facto and has yet to gain the full membership of United Nations, Israel and United States stand as the main obstacle in the way of allowing Palestine the full recognition of United States as a sovereign state. Jordan is under the burden of economic crisis and is left considerably backward. Egypt has grown strong, and it never engaged itself into war with Israel afterwards, Egypt at present in engaged and engulfed into its own crisis in form of battle between military and democracy and the Tahrir Square becoming an emblem of internal revolution against Hossani Mubarik. Conclusion: Four decades post the war, the region is still engaged in a stranded relationship and every now and then Israel has its taste of war and battles with either Arab states. At times it is Palestine in attacks from refugees’ camps, on others it is war with Hezbollah of Lebanon. The strained relationship and non resolution of the issues had impeded the social and economic progress in the region, has given impetus to the arms race, with Israel being supported by United States of America and Palestine being helped by Iran and other allies to counter the impact of Israel’s military strength. Israel stands as a dominant force and despite its large population and strong army; Egypt’s military ranking falls relatively below Israel’s based on Israel’s support that is enjoyed through the backing of West and United States of America in a direct manner. Overall it allowed each of the member gaining more experience of the situation and knowing the strengths of their enemy and their own as well as the weaknesses on either side. Works Cited: Crane, Keith, Andreas Goldthou, and Stuart E Johnson. Imported Oil and U.S. National Security. Rand Corporation, 2009. Dunstan, Simon. The Yom Kippur War: The Arab-Israeli War of 1973. Osprey Publishing, 2007. Garthoff, Raymond L. A Journey Through the Cold War: A Memoir of Containment and Coexistence. Brookings Institution Press, 2001. Newman, David, and Joel Peters. Routledge Handbook on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Routledge, 2013. Sandler, Stanley. Ground Warfare: An International Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, 2002. Safran, Nadav. Israel--The Embattled Ally. Harvard University Press, 2009. Tucker, Spencer C. The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts. ABC-CLIO, 2010. White, Jonathan R. Terrorism and Homeland Security. Cengage Learning, 2012. Read More