The Yom Kippur War of 1973, from the perspective of the Arab coalition led by Egypt and Syria, was a decisive attempt to reclaim lost territories and restore dignity after the humiliating defeat in the Six-Day War of 1967. For Cairo and Damascus, the war was not just a military campaign but a struggle to address the injustices they believed were imposed upon them by Israel and its allies. The conflict was defined by misperceptions and conflicting narratives, as both sides viewed the war through radically different lenses of history, justice, and security.
From Cairo's perspective, the loss of the Sinai Peninsula in 1967 was a deep wound, both strategically and symbolically. The peninsula was not only a crucial geographic region but also a core part of Egypt's national identity and sovereignty. For Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the war was necessary to break the deadlock in negotiations and to compel Israel and its Western allies to take Arab demands seriously. Sadat viewed the recapture of Sinai as a first step toward restoring regional balance and achieving lasting peace on terms that respected Arab sovereignty.
Similarly, for Damascus, the Golan Heights held immense strategic and emotional significance. The Israeli occupation of this critical plateau threatened Syria's security and represented an ongoing affront to its territorial integrity. Syrian President Hafez al-Assad framed the war as a fight for survival and a chance to reclaim what was rightfully Syria's. For Damascus, the Yom Kippur War was about resisting what it saw as Israeli expansionism and ensuring that Syria could no longer be vulnerable to attacks from an elevated position.
A major source of misunderstanding, as seen from the Arab coalition's perspective, was Israel's interpretation of its territorial gains as a deterrent strategy. For Cairo and Damascus, these were not concessions but conquered territories to be evacuated. For the Arab states, the Israeli refusal to vacate these lands reflected a failure to negotiate seriously. For them, war was the only tool that could force Israel to recognize its claims and break the sense of invincibility it had assumed.
The timing and strategy of the war reflected the intent of the coalition to win militarily as well as psychologically. Attacking Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the week for Israel, was not merely a tactical decision but a declaration of defiance against what the Arab coalition felt were years of Israeli arrogance. For Egypt and Syria, the early successes of the war such as the crossing of the Suez Canal by Egyptian forces and the initial Syrian advances in the Golan Heights were proof that Israel's military superiority was not insurmountable. These victories were seen as a restoration of Arab pride and a vindication of their resolve.
Another critical misunderstanding lay in the role of superpowers in the conflict. The Arab coalition saw US support for Israel, specifically during the airlift of military supplies by the war, as direct intervention to their efforts. Cairo and Damascus contended that such support tipped the scale in favor of Israel, which further entrenched the assumption of two illegitimate variables: Israel did not fight alone, but with the backing of a world superpower. At the same time, though, the Arabs had to have a counterforce against the Soviet Union's political influence in their region. Consequently, the other side of its dependency on powerful nations was made evident by having the superpower that was keen on advancing itself through the said war.
Reshaping: The Yom Kippur War was equally a means by which Cairo meant to reshape itself with the international community. Sadat’s decision to initiate the war was intended to demonstrate Egypt’s agency and its ability to dictate the terms of its future. While the war resulted in significant casualties, Cairo viewed the eventual negotiations and the subsequent Camp David Accords as a validation of its strategy. For Egypt, the war was a strategic sacrifice to find its rightful role in the neighborhood and to enjoy the return of Sinai.
From Damascus's point of view, the result of the war was less satisfying but no less meaningful. Syria did not recover the Golan Heights, but the war solidified its resolve to continue resisting Israeli occupation and underscored the larger Arab solidarity against Israel. Damascus considered the war as a call to arms for further resistance, casting the losses during the war as a badge of honor in the pursuit of regaining its lost territories.
The Arab coalition also saw the war as an opportunity to challenge Israel's narrative of invincibility. The swift victories of 1967 had left an impression of Israeli dominance, but the early successes of the Yom Kippur War shattered this perception. For Egypt and Syria, these gains were not just military achievements but also symbolic victories that resonated across the Arab world. The war proved that Israel's military prowess was not unassailable and that Arab nations could mount coordinated and effective challenges.
Through the lens of Cairo and Damascus, the misconceptions that drove the Yom Kippur War were based on competing conceptions of justice and security. The Arab coalition felt that the actions of Israel-from its occupation of Arab lands to its military policies-were evidence of a reluctance to coexist on equal footing. For Egypt and Syria, the war was not about the destruction of Israel but rather correcting historical wrongs and exercising rights as sovereign states.
The Yom Kippur War has come to represent an epitome of resilience and willpower. In the war, the unity to face challenges came out strongly; it portrayed that there is still more to do towards the pursuit of justice. In fact, even though the objectives of the conflict were not completely met, this war represented a turning point in the region's history and a precursor to subsequent negotiations. In fact, this war would lay down the story of both the parties involved in the war.
From Cairo and Damascus' point of view, the Yom Kippur War was a justified necessity to retrieve the lost grounds and to oppose the status quo, which they considered to have been imposed unfairly. Sacrifices in the war are remembered as resistance against oppression and as reaffirmation of commitment by the Arab coalition toward the achievement of just and lasting peace.