As today is 6th of October, 39 years ago at Yom Kippur War. Who do you think really won the war?

The war begins: Israel holds The Sinai Peninsula The Golan Heights. The war ends: Israel holds The Sinai Peninsula + a beach head on the western side of the Suez canal in Africa, with nothing but road between the IDF and Cairo The Golan Hights + The Kuneitra Valley with nothing but road between the IDF and Damascus. As a military officer, I can tell you victory is a function of obtaining the set targets: Arab Targets for the 1973 war: Unleash a humiliating Blow on Israel - One could argue that this was achieved, Israel WAS caught by surprise and suffered many casualties. Cancel Israeli territorial achievements of the 1967 war - Failed miserably. Israel ended up with MORE territory than it held to begin with. Israeli targets for the 1973 war (Counter strike): Block Syrian Egyptian advance into Israel - Achieved. Cancel territorial achievements by Syrian Egyptian forces - Achieved. So on all objective, military aspects of the conflict - This was an Israeli victory. However! One must take into account perception. Arab accounts for history of conflicts with tend to be accurate - UP TO THE POINT THE TIP CHANGES IN FAVOR OF ISRAEL :) (Sure, up till June 5, 1967, Arab armies were doing great!) The Egyptian built a huge mythology around 1973, the successful channel crossing, and causing serious losses to the Israeli side. They have movies, TV series, you name it...a whole lot of ethos. They just tend to forget to complete the story, after all, this happened: And also, Israel returned territory to Egypt as part of the 81 peace accord. That would not be the case had Israel lost, would it now? The Syrian side tended to side with the Egyptian as for the outcome, but due to limited initial achievements, which did not last very long, the Myth never quite caught on in Syria. (AND Egypt has a much more advanced movie industry) On the Israeli side - The 1973 is perceived as a resounding failure. Yes - the overall result was a military victory. Arab armies and territory holding were at a worst ending point than starting point. But this came at a terrible price. And most importantly, the initial collapse at facing the attacks wes above all, a result of government/intelligence negligence. Israel had more than sufficient indication to the up and coming events and failed to respond. This caused a rift between government and people than ever before, and lead to the resignation of Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir. 41 years later, the wound is still open. A lot has been learned from the intelligence failure. Mostly this is perceived and remember by Israelis as a war won IN SPITE of the Generals rather than thanks to the generals, with the superiority of junior military staff - regiment, Company and platoon commanders - in the field, over those of the enemy. (*Note: The help by the U.S was significant armament and supply wise, true, but to clarify, no U.S forces were involved, the phrasing of the question might mislead) This is a classic case of Let the baby have its bottle: The Egyptian perception of the war allowed the late president Sadat to move towards a peace process towards the end of that decade. So be it. Hope this helps with getting perspective on the matter.

If by "win" we mean "achieve a predefined strategic goal by means of violence (military force) and diplomacy" - Egypt has won - it eventually regained control over the Sinai peninsula, got the diplomatic equilibrium so that the Israelis, who previously ignored diplomatic channel and negotiations, were open for discussion. Arguebly this war opened the road to later peace talksand Israeli concessions. The USA "won". It sustained its influence in the middle east, and kept its deterrance vs the Soviets. One could argue that Israel would surely lose without USA's help (by air lifting military supplies and diplomatic intermediation) or "cold warring" or "war by proxying" as you please. A few years later, Egypt switched sides and left the Soviet embrace. The Egyptians first reached out to the US on the second day of the war. The USA has also maintained the massive military support airlift to Israel vs the threat of a soviet counter airlift, and diplomatically seems like it did better than the soviets in the UN and world arena. So we remain with the queston how did Israel do. If the predefined goal of a defensive war by any country - would be to retain all assets - land, military force and dipomatic position, if not gain more by overpowering the enemy and take the war to the enemie's territory, as the Israely mil. doctrine maintains, than Israel has won in the immidiate perspective - The territory was regained, the war - transferred to enemy grounds, the military force remained mainly intact and losses were "tolerable" while the enemy in two frunts was devestated. Some assets were lost - deterrance, illusion of invincibility, belief that Israel is self reliant in war and peace. The concept that Israel could exist in the middle east without regard to its neighbor in a constant state of war could not be maintained. In the long run, arguably, Israel lost the Sinai peninsula as a result of the war - however directly or indirectly, and therefore has "lost".

The War was like any other war---no one wins except arms manufacturers. The idealisation of military force over negotiation is rather sad. Egypt lost because its repressive regime was now bankrolled by the US, to keep it peaceful. Israel lost because the war validates the paranoid militarist delusion that prevents progress from happening. The war did not bring a solution any nearer or a just settlement any closer. Syria lost because a corrupt military regime stayed in power. The world lost, because all wars are a sign of failure to negotiate.

Pretty obviously Egypt won by forcing Israel's army to retreat away from Suez canal abandoning its army bases there and later completely out of Sinai which is an Egyptian land that was occupied by Israel.