What's new

Why is Israel So Successful Against Arab Armies

I'm also stating facts, yet to see you show me wrong.

All you can come with are personal attacks.



It was not a joint-effort on every level, on the political and military level each state had its own ambitions.

These 4 Arab regimes mainly involved in the wars; Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan. All of them had their own ideology and visions for the Arab world which threatened each other. These disputes continued after the wars with Israel, Nasser ruling the united arab republic (Syria&Egypt today) wanted to take over Jordan, Iraq stood against this.

Jordan warned Israel ahead of the 1973 attack.
Syria did not trust Iraq's forces stationed around Damascus.

If you look at other wars where many states take part of there is always a leader of the coalition, the strongest state. It has been the United States for many of those coalitions. Amongst Syria, Iraq and Egypt all 3 wanted to be that leader, leader of the Arabs.. Syria and Egypt became 1 state under Nasser as the United Arab Republic, that left them and Iraq competing. And Jordan had its own side as a monarchy.

Those are some errors not including the military issues.

I see, thanks for the answer though one can wonder - had Israel not come to exist would the Arab nations live peacefully or be at each other's necks: Arab republic vs. monarchy vs caliphate and Hashemite kingdom vs Saudi kingdom or Sunni caliphate vs Shia caliphate.
 
.
Cause it's not that simple, and if you had a brain you would know. If it was that simple we would all be generals.

There's a reason why the saying exists: The more you know, the more you know how much you don't know.

Lets ignore the fact you outgunned and outnumbered the Israelis for a minute.

Do you think if Arabs were "united" they could have or can defeated Israel? genuine question, dont start trolling.
 
.
Lets ignore the fact you outgunned and outnumbered the Israelis for a minute.

Do you think if Arabs were "united" they could have or can defeated Israel? genuine question, dont start trolling.

Outmanned and outgunned often means nothing. Only recently in Iraq during the 2014 crisis, whilst many army units collapsed certain units remained intact and successfully fought IS. This not only due to better training but better organization.

And for that, your 2nd part is actually something that can seriously be considered. You underestimate force effectiveness dependency on its command and organization, chain of command, operational freedom with regards to parent agencies and other relevant entities they are required to request permission from. And the list goes on. Arabs also ensured that the many units from their armies never were able to fully independently communicate with each other as to prevent plots/coups against the ruling regime, each force mistrusted the other. That mistrusted existed in corps level (army, republican guard), division level and between different Arab states on every level there is.

This is why I referred you to a link earlier in the thread but you didn't care.
 
.
Again your changing subject and didn't answer the question. I dont care about Iraq's poor performance against IS or any faction. You dont go into a war as an aggressor unless you think you can gain something from it.

Do you think if Arabs were "unified" you could have or can defeat Israel? Is that so hard to answer.
 
.
Again your changing subject and didn't answer the question. I dont care about Iraq's poor performance against IS or any faction. You dont go into a war as an aggressor unless you think you can gain something from it.

Do you think if Arabs were "unified" you could have or can defeat Israel? Is that so hard to answer.

Today it's possible. Some Arab states wield advanced equipment, some wield large armies, some wield experienced units. Combined they don't lack anything in theory.

Back then is too hard to say, little data available and way before my time.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom