1967- Arab Israeli History Channel documentary

[Durran3]

Check it out.. very informative and the Military Strategists would find this very informational

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

 

[Omar1984]

Does it mention Pakistani pilots shooting Israeli planes down?

 

[omerhhh]

The Six Day war That is when it all went wrong....................

 

[Durran3]

Those who train, prepare and have skill win .. Apparently the Arabs were just the opposite lol.. completely unorganized..

 

[Omar1984]

Those who train, prepare and have skill win .. Apparently the Arabs were just the opposite lol.. completely unorganized..

Yes its the Pakistani pilots who shot the Israeli planes down, Arab pilots couldnt get any Israeli planes down.

 

[ejaz007]

Yes its the Pakistani pilots who shot the Israeli planes down, Arab pilots couldnt get any Israeli planes down.

Your statement is not correct. Arab fighter pilots did shoot down Israeli fighters.

Arabs preparedness is another point worth discussing. What is also needed to find is the inter rivalry between Eqyptian generals which perhaps played a part in the defeat.

 

[Solomon2]

The leaders of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all claimed that their air forces were destroyed due to attacks by British and American planes. So who was lying - the Pakistani pilots or the Arabs?

 

[Patriot]

The leaders of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all claimed that their air forces were destroyed due to attacks by British and American planes. So who was lying - the Pakistani pilots or the Arabs?

There were only 3-4 Pakistani Pilots there.Egyption, Jordan and Sryian generals were incharge not Pakistani.Anyway Israel was very smart and they destroyed most of the fighters on ground before they could even air bone.Obviousely, they were also poorly trained as from what i've heard (Ex-PAF Pilot who was friend of Pakistani Pilot who was in Egypt during War) these pilots were treated like Royal Family Members (Arab Pilots) and did not have good training.The only real dogfights were done by Pakistani Pilots which were only 3-4 i believe.I was reading some Israeli article few weeks ago and he mentioned Mossad did not knew Pakistani pilots were there otherwise they would have definately sent more fighters for destroying air bases.

 

[PeacefulIndian]

The Six Day war That is when it all went wrong....................

What do you mean went wrong? Egypt President Nasar had clearly declared that his aim was to "Destroy Israel".

What would have happened if it went "right'? Israel would have gone off the map of the world. Would it have made you happier?

 

[Kasrkin]

A lot of things could've happened differently 'Peacefulindian'. Israel could have been defeated without being destroyed completely. But what actually happened was that Israel won everywhere, and won more than anyone including themselves expected. Everything did go wrong for the Arabs, no doubt. Take it in the academic sense, don't look for fights where they are none.

The leaders of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all claimed that their air forces were destroyed due to attacks by British and American planes. So who was lying - the Pakistani pilots or the Arabs?

These countries lie to themselves about the reality of that war to this day. This is not surprising...

 

[saiko]

What do you mean went wrong? Egypt President Nasar had clearly declared that his aim was to "Destroy Israel".

Not even the Israelis ultimately believed that. You can find most of their top decision makers on public record stating they did not believe Nasser would attack. For one, part of his army was off fighting in a civil war in Yemen still. And two, the forces he sent into the Sinai were nothing close to what was necessary for an attack according to Soviet doctrine.

In the end, the Egyptians in the Sinai did not outnumber the Israelis 2 to 1 in anything, except maybe artillery. 100,000 Egyptians vs 70,000 Israelis, 900 tanks vs 700 Israeli, etc.

This is not to take away from the assault though - it will well planned and well executed - no doubt about it.

 

[PeacefulIndian]

A lot of things could've happened differently 'Peacefulindian'. Israel could have been defeated without being destroyed completely. But what actually happened was that Israel won everywhere, and won more than anyone including themselves expected. Everything did go wrong for the Arabs, no doubt. Take it in the academic sense, don't look for fights where they are none.



These countries lie to themselves about the reality of that war to this day. This is not surprising...

I am not looking for fights.

And how do you say Israel could have been defeated without being demolished? The facts were simple. Arabs didn't want a pro-western, Jewish country in a region which used be completely Arab. (They still don't). The sole aim of the battle was to eliminate Israel. US, UK, Russia though pro-Israel at that time, may not have been able to help had Israel lost the battle. Jordan, the most pro-Israel Arab country would have bowed to the pressure of Arab brotherhood, leaving Israel to its fate, which would have been inevitable.

 

[Solomon2]

Israel could have been defeated without being destroyed completely -

You can find most of their top decision makers on public record stating they did not believe Nasser would attack.

The Arab leaders may not have intended at first to conquer Israel, just give it a good scare, but once they had kicked the U.N. out of Sinai the "kill Israel" rhetoric they themselves had fomented proved irresistible: they merged their military under Egyptian command, moved up their aircraft, and mobilized their armor. No one at the time believed Israel could have survived a Soviet-style armored assault on three fronts by Arabs slavering to exterminate them - "We will pave Tel Aviv with the skulls of Jews" was among the milder slogans Arabs employed at the time. Israel struck first, perhaps only hours ahead of a planned attack, lest it be overwhelmed once the Arabs were fully in position and ready to invade.

Or so the Israelis thought. It came out much later that it was always Nasser's plan to goad the Israelis to attack first, so his army could fight the battle on "home" territory. No wonder he tried to resign when the Egyptians abandoned their weapons to swim the Canal.

 

[Kasrkin]

I am not looking for fights.

And how do you say Israel could have been defeated without being demolished? The facts were simple. Arabs didn't want a pro-western, Jewish country in a region which used be completely Arab. (They still don't). The sole aim of the battle was to eliminate Israel. US, UK, Russia though pro-Israel at that time, may not have been able to help had Israel lost the battle. Jordan, the most pro-Israel Arab country would have bowed to the pressure of Arab brotherhood, leaving Israel to its fate, which would have been inevitable.

You are not looking at this properly. The Indians wanted to destroy Pakistan in 1965 and in 1971. But the Indians did better in both these wars than what the Arabs managed against Israel. However Pakistan is still here and was able to defend vital territory, fight the larger Indian Armies to a standstill. This would've happened with Israel too, it is probable that Arab pride would've been satisfied by killing a few thousand Jewish soldiers or capturing a bit of territory here and there. Or that the Arabs would’ve expended themselves quickly while on the offensive. This war surely proved who had the qualitative edge in terms of tactics and leadership and morale.

I don’t buy this ‘Arabs wanted to DESTROY Israel and were only stopped by the barest of margins’ argument. Though I don’t find the Israeli preemptive attack ‘immoral’ or ‘cowardly’, on the other hand the Israelis were far from cornered. The Arabs were just complacent. And also Russia was not pro-Israel. The USSR was completely pro-Arab at the time. And many Arab countries were close to the US. So the picture is not as simplistic as you are pretending.

So there is no need to get confrontational and bring moral-right-or-wrong politics into this dispassionate discussion if someone expresses their disappointment with Arab performance.

 

[Solomon2]

I don’t buy this ‘Arabs wanted to DESTROY Israel and were only stopped by the barest of margins’ argument. Though I don’t find the Israeli preemptive attack ‘immoral’ or ‘cowardly’, on the other hand the Israelis were far from cornered. The Arabs were just complacent. And also Russia was not pro-Israel. The USSR was completely pro-Arab at the time. And many Arab countries were close to the US...

Curious. Why, exactly, don't you "buy this ‘Arabs wanted to DESTROY Israel and were only stopped by the barest of margins’ argument'"? It's not like the proofs aren't there to back up such an assertion, or that it is negated by a countervailing interpretation of the facts - no interpretation that I'm aware of, anyway. Is it because acknowledging that this was the case would spoil a treasured analogy?