A Suez War, 1956, what-if- Jordan and Syria join the fray

[raharris1973]

What if Jordan and Syria declare war on Israel in the day between the Israeli attack on Egypt and the Anglo-French ultimatum?

Do the Anglo-French halt their own planned intervention because things have gotten out of hand?

How well can Israel handle, or not handle, a three front war in 1956?

For comparison purposes, the Israelis won a six-day war with Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967.

Israeli operations against Egypt alone in 1956 lasted 9 days. (& Yom Kippur War lasted 20 days)

Could this widened, multi-front war end in a total or partial defeat for Israel?

Even if Israel loses no territory, could the Jordanian and Syrian participation force them to curtail the Sinai offensive?

Would the results instead be an Israeli victory on three fronts, and occupation of the West Bank and Golan Heights, within a short period, like a dozen days?

Or could there be an intermediate result, where the multiple fronts result in a war that is a bit slower and more grinding and costly for Israel like the 1948-1949 war, lasting months not weeks, even if Israel is winner in the end?

How will the occupied territories be dealt with internationally.

In OTL, Israel withstood international pressure to withdraw from Sinai and Gaza until March 1957, when it withdrew with the emplacement of the UNEF peacekeeping force in Sinai and Gaza with assurances about use of the Straits of Tiran.

Would the US and USSR insist on a similar withdrawal of Israel if it had occupied the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and the West Bank? Would it be possible to press Israel out of some or all of its occupied land to the east, given the greater religious attachment to it? (thinking in in particular of the Old City (East) Jerusalem with the Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall)

Could we end up with UN peacekeepers on every Israeli border, in the Golan and West Bank (and maybe East Jerusalem) in addition to Sinai and Gaza?

Or would the widening of the Suez War to involve multiple Arab countries result in Israeli retention of all occupied territories, pending peace treaties, which may or may not come any time soon.

 

[ATP]

Arabs would be arabs,so they would lost.Notching change,becouse Izrael would widraw anyway from anytching they catched then - USA was still normal in those days,and do not fund Izrael yet.

 

[raharris1973]

Arabs would be arabs,so they would lost.Notching change,becouse Izrael would widraw anyway from anytching they catched then - USA was still normal in those days,and do not fund Izrael yet.

So once the Israelis withdraw, are there UN peacekeepers on all territories they withdraw from, like Sinai, Tiran, Gaza (OTL), Jerusalem-West Bank, and Golan Heights?

How long do those peacekeepers stay? Do the Arab leaders ever order them to shift positions or leave their countries?

 

[ATP]

So once the Israelis withdraw, are there UN peacekeepers on all territories they withdraw from, like Sinai, Tiran, Gaza (OTL), Jerusalem-West Bank, and Golan Heights?

How long do those peacekeepers stay? Do the Arab leaders ever order them to shift positions or leave their countries?

i think,that they would stay till soviets fall.What could happen later - i am not sure.

 

[raharris1973]

i think,that they would stay till soviets fall.What could happen later - i am not sure.

Why would they stay?

It's harder for three Arab leaders to coordinate and ask for them to leave or move, than for just one to do it?

 

[raharris1973]

Aside from Jordan or Syria joining early, I wonder if they could end up joining in the war in reaction to a Suez War/Crisis that dragged on longer.

For example, where the USA never endorsed the idea and does not positively support it, but does not want to publicly and brutally undercut its allies, especially Britain and France, and hurt relations, and thus Washington stays silent and disclaims involvement.

That situation means Britain, France and Israel do not need to quit right away under double superpower, financial, and UNGA global diplomatic pressure. But it really is not likely to lead the Egyptians to surrender. Instead the Egyptians will snipe at the forces occupying the Canal Zone and sabotage canal operations for weeks and months on end, and use local civilians as human shields. So basically, the US not backstabbing its allies just gives Britain and France the opportunity to fail slowly and on their own, instead of fast with a quick backstab from Uncle Sam. In the extra days/weeks while this drags on, mobilized and outraged Arab opinion may demand action by other states to help Egypt, and the most practical way others can help is for Israel's other neighbors, Jordan and Syria, possibly little Lebanon also, but probably not, to attack it to give the Egyptians some relief. The Soviets would certainly be willing to do speedy arms deliveries to the Syrians to encourage them to act. There's less Arabs can do against Britain and France, but the Algerians can intensify their rebellion (and Tunisians and Moroccans possibly do more to help it), and Britain could face additional unrest and sniping in its Arabian peninsula protectorates.

 

[ATP]

Why would they stay?

It's harder for three Arab leaders to coordinate and ask for them to leave or move, than for just one to do it?

You have a point,they probably would leave.