Political Memes

This WWII experience. Also,

As pointed out by that very article, those guard/auxiliary units were used for 'policing action' in the Levant - ie they did not see much, if any, serious combat.

After the British army, the Haganah was considered the most powerful military force in the Middle East.

Okay? What does that have to do with WW2 experience?

All in all, some 30,000 Palestinian Jews served in the British army during the war.

Again, most of them in guard units that did not see serious combat during WW2. The 12,000 Palestinians who served Britain in WW2 saw, proportionally to those who served, more combat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah

So yeah. Zionists had some pretty impressive forces by 1948.

Zionists having 'impressive forces' and having experience from WW2 in excess of Palestinian Arabs are two entirely different concepts.

First he forced an attack on Israeli positions not covered by the Egyptian SAM umbrella, which was the lynchpin of the war (Egypt had no illusions about its ability to face off with the Israeli Air Force), losing Egyptian troops and giving Israel the momentum to launch a counteroffensive. Second, when during that counteroffensive Israel crossed the Suez Canal, he prevented his chief of staff from moving forces to the West Bank of the Canal to stop them. This would later lead to the disabling of Egypt’s SAM umbrella and the complete derailing of the war effort. Egypt’s goal in the war, was to take the East Bank of the Suez (which was protected by the SAM umbrella) and hold onto it for dear life to get Sinai in a negotiated peace, so while Sadat’s meddling wasn’t outright fatal it greatly strengthened the Israeli position. Had Israel’s crossing been limited by prompt Egyptian intervention, the war would’ve been a clear Egyptian victory, which probably wouldn’t have mattered much in the long term but it would’ve prevented Zionists from acting so fucking smug about the whole thing.

I'm skeptical of the narrative of "Just one decision would have saved us" considering how seriously the Egyptian offensive was thrown back, but I also have to concede that the strategic situation of the Yom Kippur War is hardly something I'm read up on.

I mean, Syria does need to rebuild but Egypt already has those institutions; it just needs competent leadership able to fund and use them. While some new military ideas likely do need to be imported, the one thing the Egyptian regime has done is keep the military well-armed and trained.

Press X to doubt.

Uh… no? The War of the First Coalition predates the Republic,

Only nominally - the War of the First Coalition occurred because King Louis XVI attempted to flee France in the hopes of raising an army to restore his power. When the war broke out, France was technically a monarchy, but holding Louis XVI literally as prisoner, and executed him only a few months later. "Because they wanted to crush what was clearly in the process of formalizing a republican regime" is a distinction without a difference.

and if anything the Holy Roman Emperor was supportive of the French Revolutionary project

What the fuck???

The same Leopold II who made an open declaration the year before the war that military force would be employed if those uppity French so much as reduced King Louis XVI's powers??

It was French warmongers pushing for war with Austrians to weed out supposed foreign agents and conspirators and bring Revolutionary Purity™ to the country. The stuff about Austria wanting to destroy the Revolution was only true in the French’s heads, at least at the start.

This is an extremely bizarre take and not even vaguely connected to reality.

I mean, I have no idea, but do note that a whole generation of Arabs has been radicalized against Israel by the genocide in Gaza, so it wouldn’t be too hard to push a Holy War of Patriotic Liberation on Behalf of our Palestinian Brothers™ (I’m only slightly exaggerating).

Combined with the widespread antisemitism in Egyptian society, that sounds like a great recipe for a genocide upon any theoretical success.

It’s not easy, but it does happen. See: WWII.

... yes, when all major democratic counties who joined joined because of the direct threat of war by an aggressive non-democratic polity. The UK and France started it up because, as they saw it, Germany was clearly not going to stop after the last five annexations, and they were clearly on the chopping block next. The US only joined because we were directly attacked.

Economic starvation?

Is there a blockade that China is preventing with its land border?

And how would they substitute trade with their foreign partners?

See previous statements about blockades not being an easy thing like you think they are.

Yes, but nothing from Central Asia, and Iran has a good amount of influence on Iraq, its only Arab neighbor. Iran can still sell its oil and drones, as long as it can circumvent sanctions.

And how would pressure from neighboring countries prevent that? Their primary means of selling oil involves passing through the Strait of Hormuz; 'hostile power is in striking distance' is not really the factor you're portraying it as.

I mean, the intelligence sharing and airlift seem like full-throttle support to me. That’s all American could’ve done in that situation short of boots on the ground.

An option which was only raised because of Israeli nuclear threats if they didn't get assistance (which shouldn't have been conceded to, but that's another issue entirely), and which was limited to resupply of losses. The initial question of aid was roundly rejected in high-level US discussions, Kissinger (may he rest in piss) excepted.

The Directory et al led most of the war, but it was the Legislative Assembly that started it on the pretense that it would be quick, easy and glorious. It was none of those things, yet they continued anyway with no real peace movement in France.

It was started because of a clearly stated threat by Austria and Prussia, and attempts by nobility - including the king himself - to raise foreign forces for an invasion of France.

My understanding is that the domestic objection to Iraq was more about the pointlessness of the whole thing, because there really was no reason for America to be in Iraq. It’s not like the American public soured on the noble mission of liberty espoused by Bush and crew; it was more a realization that there was no noble mission in the first place.

Not really, no.

For instance an Islamist-led revolution would be much more likely to lead to a war with Israel than one led by liberal moderates

... I thought we were discussing a stable and democratic regime, not an Islamist pseudodemocracy. At that point, we might as well start discussing strongman states again.

The Blitz certainly didn’t discourage Britain from fighting in WWII.

The Blitz was also a direct attack on Britain during a war with existential implications for the continuation of the British government, not a fucking foreign adventure.

Hopefully with less indiscriminate targeting, but yes. I’d also assume most countries would be less willing to attack Egypt so they don’t get shut out of the Suez Canal.

By international agreements, if Egypt were to shut the Suez Canal to international trade for reasons of pressuring Israel or other countries supporting Israel, things would get very sour very fast.

It’s only getting off that lightly because it still has its Mediterranean ports. Take those away and they will be cut off from the outside world.

See previous statement about blockades not being all that easy.

Add in the Palestinian Intifada that would no doubt be inspired and supported by such action and you get a recipe for something to happen without too many non-Palestinian Arabs getting thrown into the meat grinder.

I'm sorry, are the Palestinians just not 'inspired' enough to fight for their lives at present?

A lot of this amounts to not much more than "If we BELIEVED enough it would be easy!"

It doesn’t need to be a full blockade; turn that area into a warzone and nobody will want to ship there.

Like how no one ships to Ukraine now?

Also I want to note that while you seem to have focused on the war bit, there’s also a full spectrum of non-military democratic Arab states could do to significantly pressure Israel, especially by targeting their all too critical relationship with Europe. A more economically robust Arab League could have another go at the original Arab League boycotts of Israel or threaten another oil embargo.

Considering that oil production was ramped up in Western countries so that the original embargo couldn't be repeated with the same devastating effects, and that oil is of decreasing relevance in the modern day, it would be a very long shot.

I’m also not sure what knobs can be turned regarding the Suez Canal short of denying ships access, but there’s probably something.

Not much. The Suez Canal is highly regulated by international agreements precisely to stop Egypt from using it as a weapon, like it tried to in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.