How has israel won most of its major wars while always having

The biggest factor is that their military was considered politically reliable.

This means that decisions could be delegated to the lowest possible level, and the military in general could be much more autonomous, and thus effective.

Israel also had a modern parliamentary democracy and civil service, which supplemented this, and encouraged yet more military professionalism.

This goes over a lot of the finer details of the cultural divide.

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

intelligence, skill, morale, organization but number 1: arabs suck, really suck

Questionably ethical but practically sound strategy, mostly competent military control, motivated soldiers, and plenty of indirect assistance from ally states.

Alternatively, a secret army of golems powered by Jewish magiscience.

Better guns and devoted soldiers (sure Nasr had the manpower and decent guns, but no one fighting for Nasr was fighting for Allah or the preservation of Islam)

>>1590428
http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

>>1590458
>Better guns
The arabs and israelis both had AK derivatives.
And firearm quality really doesn't determine victory..

>>1590458
"Better guns" is not so cut and dried. But the Israeli military has historically been miles better trained and prepared for combat than their enemies.

>>1590466
I believe his meaning is more of weapons systems such as aircraft and armor rather than just small arms.

>>1590466
Everything's based on the AK47... Also how did the Egyptian air force do in 1967?

>>1590488
In 1967 the Israelis utterly dominated the skies after their initial strikes. The plan was front loaded and worked beyond anyone's expectations. The War of Attrition, Yom Kippur, and the Bekka Valley in 1982 really showed the quality of the IAF over the Arab opposition.

>>1590454
funnely enough i watched a silent movie where they did exactly that . the jews created a golem that then attack a buch of germans frachistein style

surprisingly not all that antisemitic besides you know jew magic

>>1590428
jew space magic

>>1590511
only on Israel and Palestine do you see people who are this unaware of sarcasm

>>1590428
american technology, good military training

>>1590551
I was completely aware of the meaning of his post and thought i would expand on it a bit in a non sarcastic manner.

File: 5315ff4f1af148068f6f9f7f44e6cfb6.jpg (13KB, 236x227px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 236x227px

Because the Jews are God's chosen people.

>>1590560
Pre 1970 the tech tended to be French and British.

File: I eat T-55's for breakfast.jpg (82KB, 800x584px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x584px

>>1590583
they did have refurbished Sherman's though.

>>1590592
Sure, with a French main gun. The amazing thing is how potent a tank it was with skilled crews.

>>1590592
Shocking considering that their primary tank was the refitted Sherman for a long time, at least for the very first war IIRC. And compared to the guns of the tanks of that era, it may as well not have had armour.

>>1590634
It wasn't until the mid 60s that the US started supporting Israel. Before that we'd actually blocked numerous attempts by European countries to sell surplus Patton tanks to Israel. The US and UK mainly took a "balancing" stance in a attempt to maintain peace in the region. For example: in the 50s the British sold a bunch of Centurion tanks to Egypt, then sold the same amount to Israel.

>why did Israel win #9023
>why arabs lose war gets posted
>slight rational discussion about Israeli military structure and organisation and US funding of Israel

ok, now all we need is /pol/ coming in and starting to talk about islam boogeymans

>>1590730
So what's the problem? The thread has been pretty rational so far.

>>1590730
are you attempting to refute "why arabs lose wars" or just bitching

>>1590741
indeed i was expecting it would turn into a jew/muslim fuck fest but but instead i got decent answers

keep it real /his

>>1590721
Its only when those dirty reds started funding and training the arabs that we were all like "oh shit nigga".

>>1590754
>>1590741

just bitching

>>1590428
Must be god

That's what you wanna hear, right?

>>1590428
Ok cause everyone here is giving shit answers, just "hurr durr arabs suck", I'll give an actual proper answer.

Let's look at each war:
>1948
Israel actually had the numbers advantage. The Haganah had much more numbers and weaponry than the Palestinians, and many of them had years of experience from world war 2. The surrounding Arab countries didn't really contribute that much soldiers, only token amounts out of reluctance. Most Arab countries at this time were still western puppet regimes so there was no real strong will to fight for Palestine. They did send forces but all together did not outnumber the Jewish forces.

Combine this with the fact that the Jews had superior military and training.

The 1948 war can be divided into two parts. The first part, the Arabs did quite well and pushed deep into Jewish territory but were stopped when both sides were running out of equipment. There was a period of ceasefire, in which Israel got a massive resupply from Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, whereas the Arabs go no resupply, and when fighting resumed, the Arabs got pushed back.

>1967
Arabs weren't actually expecting a war, and the military situation in Arab countries at the time was frought with political rivalries, particularly between Nasser and Abdel Hakim Amr.

While they had lots of modern Soviet equipment, they were inexperienced and didn't have proper training. Again, Israeli generals had much experience from World War 2, and the Syrian Army officer corps was plagued by purges and political rivalries.

The Arabs were basically just sabre rattling for political reasons, they didn't expect a war. The Israeli air force attack caught them completely by surprise, and destroyed almost their entire air forces. This left their army as sitting ducks and they desperately withdrew in full retreat without a battle plan because they had no air cover.

>1973
will continue in next post

>>1591212
>>1590428

>1973
This one is kind of complicated since the Arabs were winning at the start before they fucked things up, there's a number of theories why.

The Egyptian and Syrian attacks caught Israel by surprise, and unlike last time this time they had spent lots of time training. Instead of being weak inexperienced troops, this time they had been given lots of hard training.

Israel, which had relied last time on its air force to overwhelmingly win the battle, this time found its air force cut down by Egypt and Syria's anti-air Surface to Air missiles.

Similarly, in their tank assault to recapture the Suez, they lost 400 tanks in one day to Egypt's anti-tank missiles.

This was the high point of the Arab victories of this war.

Soon after, Kissinger ordered a massive airlift, the largest in history, to resupply Israel with hundreds of tanks that they'd lost to Egyptian anti-tank missiles.

The original goal of the Egyptians in the war was to make small gains in order to force the Israelis to accept a peace treaty to return the Suez (Israel did accept this eventually, arguably because of Egypt's initial victories in the war, whereas they had before the war refused to consider returning the Sinai in exchange for peace).

However, at this point, Egypt's leader Sadat started interfering with the Generals. General Shazly only wanted a limited war and didn't want to move the army outside of the protection of the SAM umbrella because their air force was still under capacity from 1967 and would not be able to match the Israelis.

However, Sadat interfered and forced the Egyptians to keep advancing for political reasons. Up against newly American supplied tanks to Israel, they lost, for a number of reasons.

>Israel's air force, no SAM protection
to be continued

>>1590428
>>1591212
>>1591232
>American tanks were simply stronger than Soviet ones. Soviet tanks were basically designed for mass production and to zerg rush an enemy with numbers.
American M60 tanks have more armour than the T-62 and T-55. They have a longer range main gun, and can bend their gun at a lower angle.
This means they can start firing at the enemy tanks before the enemy tanks fire at them, and can start shooting at a longer range while the other tanks are still trying to get close enough to shoot.
Also, because they can bend their gun down to a lower extent, it means they don't need to go as far over sand dunes to aim at the enemy, thus exposing less of the hull and turret over the ridge than the soviet tanks, meaning its harder to hit them.

This combined with Israeli air force, No SAMs and American resupplies, meant that Israel defeated the Egyptians in subsequent engagements.

The fact that they actually encircled the Egyptian Third Army is a myth. While the Israelis did cross the Suez canal, all attempts to capture the city of Suez from the mainland to complete the encirclement were repulsed by the Egyptian army in Suez City, so they never actually defeated the Egyptians, its just neither side conclusively lost by the time a ceasefire came into place. The Egyptians were holding Sinai territory, which Sadat refused to retreat from, and the Israelis had partially crossed into the African mainland. UN ceasefire came into effect, neither side had conclusively "won", but both sides till today claim victory.

In the Golan heights, same deal with the tanks and the SAM missiles.
There is a strange thing that happened which till today fuels conspiracy theories.
Syrian tanks at the start manage to push Israelis back and nearly captured all of the Golan. Yet when they were at the cusp of victory they withdrew for some reason (despite suffering heavy losses).
Some theorise that Israel threatened Hafez al-Assad with a nuclear attack unless he withdrew

>>1591253
>>1591232
>>1591212
>>1590428

Some theorise the Israelis threatened Hafez Assad with a nuclear strike. Others say that he didn't really want to push all the way into Israel, he just wanted to make some solid military show of force to cement his position as Syria's new leader. Others say he was secretly in league with the Israelis. Lots of conspiracy theories.
The Israelis, later with a fresh supply of new tanks, started pushing back into Syria and were on the edge of Damascus, when battalions of Iraqi tanks arrived and pushed them back. Some say the Israelis thought the Iraqi armored force was much larger than it was.
The new Iraqi tank battalions, combined with the Syrians, were preparing for a new offensive to push the Israelis all the way back again, when Hafez signed the ceasefire.
Again lots of conspiracy theories for why he didn't keep fighting, which they probably could have done.
Either because:
>threatened with nukes
>secretely in league with the Israelis
>doubted his ability to retake the Golan
>felt that after Sadat signed the ceasefire, his position was untenable.

Anyway, the 1973 war was the biggest Arab-Israeli war, but had no clear winner. In the Golan, arguably Israel won since they managed to push the Syrians back. In the Sinai, it was more of a stalemate militarily, but Egypt arguably won politically since their military actions undoubtedly influenced Israel in returning the Sinai to Egypt.

That wast the last major Israeli war. Other ones since are basically just Israel fighting ragtag militais, they'd never really come up against a big armored force again, since in 1982, the Syrians largely avoided the Israelis.

In 2000 and 2006 however, Israel was defeated by Hezbollah which utilised guerilla warfare, i.e. mines, ambushes, traps, anti-tank missiles, which made Israel unable to invade Lebanon without sustaining huge casualties that were deemed to much of a political loss.

>>1591212
>>1591232
>>1591253
Since you seem to know a lot of those wars how do You Explain the Jordanian Armies performance?
>Defeated the Israeli Army in the Battle of Latrun
>Is responsible for most of Israeli causilities in the 6 days war
>Won the battle of Karameh

>>1591274
Jordan had British-trained officers, and was probably the most professionally trained since they had professional experienced generals from the British army leading them and modern British weapons.

>>1591265
Do you know why guerilla's are so effective on this day and age? I understand that the army could kill every civilian but that won't make you popular with your enemies when the need for a ceasefire arises or worse you're on the losing end.

>>1591212
>>1591232
t. Achmed

every time arab nations try to destroy isael it somehow backfires

>>1593283
It really reminds of Napoleon and the coalitions
Each time they declared war on France it resulted with more of their territory under French controlled
I wonder if they'll lose like Nappy in the end