Why did Arabs fail in every war with Israel? Bad overall strategy? Inferior weaponry? Poorly-trained soldiers...

Even if they are racist or neo-con, it doesnt matter. If their argument is so flawed, why don't you just point out a flaw instead of attacking the source?

The only defense of the idpol liberal is ad hominem.

Remember, arguments don't matter if you can brand your opponent an evil buzzword wacist!

Honestly, it's just being shit at every level. They may have had good equipment (often times even better than the Israelis), but they were god awful at fighting.

A good case study is the Bekaa Valley air battle in 1982. The Syrians set up a SAM network in the Bekaa Valley in 1981, threatening IAF operations in the area. The IAF spent a year preparing for an operation to take out the network, culminating in one of the largest post-ww2 air battles. The IAF used drones, ELINT, and land-based reconnaissance to scout out the locations of the batteries for over a year to plan out their attack. To their surprise, the Syrians kept the SA-6 batteries - mobile launchers - completely static this entire time in defiance of all logic and doctrine.

The IAF kicked off their operation with the launching of a large number of decoy drones at the network. The Syrians responded with all batteries firing in an uncoordinated manner, expending all their missiles. Once this had happened, the IAF started jamming from various platforms while F-16s and Kfirs swooped in and attacked the helpless batteries.

The Syrian Air Force responded in a panicked manner, sortieing aircraft as fast as they could and sending them out one-by-one towards the battlefield. Waiting for them, behind a wall of jamming that Syrian ground controllers couldn't see past, was almost the entire IAF F-15 fleet. As Syrian pilots were trained to fly only guided by ground controllers, they panicked once they hit jamming, and often were downed without even knowing they were being shot at. Meanwhile, the F-15s were working with AWACS and drones that were literally watching the Syrian fighters take off and fly to their deaths.

The IAF then repeated this operation the next day with similar results. The end results:
>50 to 80 Syrian aircraft downed
>30 SA-6 batteries destroyed
>2 F-15s damaged by gunfire
>one drone downed

>cont

...

The Soviet advisors in Syria trying to pick up the pieces in the aftermath of this catastrophe found that the Syrians were effectively sticking to the worst parts of Soviet doctrine while ignoring the crucial elements necessary to make it work. Critical failures included:
>Keeping the mobile batteries static
doctrine calls for constant irregular shifting of launchers to prevent enemy from mapping out batteries
>Poor discipline and coordination of battery operators
The Syrian batteries had no coordination between them, causing multiple batteries to engage the same target while leaving others untouched. Worse, many batteries expended all of their loaded missiles, leaving them vulnerable to attack. Once the attack had begun, those that still had missiles loaded were firing them haphazardly into the air without guidance, as the jamming was preventing their radars from working. Some panicked crews also threw smoke in hopes of concealing their position, but instead just marked their position for bombing.
>Scrambling fighters haphazardly
fighters were sent alone with no support, not even knowing what they were up against. Worse, the Syrians literally just sent everything they had, including Su-22s - attacker aircraft with only nominal air-to-air capabilities.
>Too much reliance on GCI
Though Soviet air doctrine is heavily reliant on ground controlled interception, the Syrians seemed to take this to an extreme - their pilots appeared to be completely helpless without communication with ground controllers. It's a lazy way to operate an air force, and air forces are an area where you really can't skimp out on training at all.

jesus, how will arabs EVER recover?

And that's the general trend we see repeated across most conflicts between Arab and Western nations. Arab nations of the time tended to be heavily reliant on very rigid doctrine that wasn't always applied correctly. While this provided for some occasional successes, such as the Egyptian push across the Suez Canal in 1973, it leaves them unable to respond organically to a changing battlespace and very vulnerable to an opponent willing and able to adapt.

As to why this is, I can't say for sure. A good deal of it may be a reaction to the cultural problems endemic to many Arab nations today - the rivalries between ethnic groups, regions, and even families coupled with poor education of many recruits makes complex operations exceedingly difficult if not impossible. While the doctrine they implemented may have been flawed and often outdated, it was certainly better than nothing at all, and likely the best they could do. The rigid, centralized doctrine they were working with allowed for the regimes they served to reduce the number of important people critical to the success of operations. You could continue to have fairly low quality and even unreliable soldiers on the frontlines while still maintaining a fairly cohesive force.

Of course, this all fails spectacularly when you come across a force capable of adapting, as happened to the Syrians in 1982 or the Iraqis in 1991. But for regional conflicts, it allowed these clusterfucks of nations to field a force respectable enough to at least deter aggression from their neighbors (usually).

Sorry if that's rambling. It's getting late here.

>what has changed in Arab culture since the military successes of the Caliphates.

People dont fight on horseback with swords and Islam as the uniting factor has worn off

Since there's a lot of Zionist shitposting and falsifying of history here, let me try to save this thread with actual facts:

>1948: first half of the war Arabs were winning and captured west bank plus many other areas until both sides expended their weapons and ammunition. Long ceasefire in which Jews got rearmed from Czechoslovakia whereas Arabs didn't allowed Jews to seize more areas and win after ceasefire.

>1967: Israelis achieved complete surprise and obliterated Arab air force on the ground leaving the remainder of the Arab armies as sitting ducks
>1973: Arabs were kicking ass the first few days advehypt destroyed 400 Israeli tanks in first few days. Arab political interferences messed up the army and didn't let them follow their original plans, leading to defeat.

>1980's Lebanon: Israel and Syria avoided battles with each other, ground engagements were more or less even, Israel had a far superior Air Force and mostly fought lightly armed Palestinian militias.
>2006 Lebanon: Hezbollah won and kicked Israel out of Lebanon

Israelis actually suck at ground fighting without air supremacy, the entire basis of their victories is overwhelming air power.

So I guess Air Power DOES win wars.

yeah except in cases of prolonged insurgency. Air power is more important in pitched battles between large tank forces.

>what has changed in Arab culture since the military successes of the Caliphates
war has changed

Largly manpower
Israel just had a surge of a few million people, about half of whome could be mobilized due to their policies.

The arabs didnt have that

>brand your opponent an evil buzzword wacist!
you seriously weaken your point by saying "wacist" instead of racist, don't do that

Some time ago I spoke to a member of the Russian diplomatic corps and remember him complain about the Syrians saying "they take everything from us but advice". I think I'm starting to understand his frustration.

war never changes

excuse me?

modern armies are vastly different from those of the caliphate

ID tagged guns

True story, the PLO during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon put T-34's to work against Israeli air power and Merkava's.
It didn't go well.

ID tagged soldiers

F

The overall organizational efforts against Israel were poorly executed and suffered from frustrated relations between the Arab states. They couldn't get along with each other, and as as a result failed to defeat a thinly-spread, desperate-for-survival country.

Also, international support from the U.S. helped counter Arab and later Soviet efforts in the region.

Reclaiming this thread from the racists.

2017 marks 50 years from the Six Days War.
So in about six months, it is very likely that Israel will see a huge Arab revolt if they don't come to some kind of agreement with the Palestinians.

Where and how did things go so wrong, that it takes more than half a century to figure out borders between Palestine and Israel?

Thanks for the info.

>So in about six months ...
that doesnt follow m8.
>Where and how did things go so wrong...
land disputes are common. many of them are older, some are even in Europe! who would have thought?

Please link to a single racist post in this thread

>Where and how did things go so wrong, that it takes more than half a century to figure out borders between Palestine and Israel?
They don't want Palestine to exist, period, and want a demographic majority of Jews in the area. It's not that hard to understand. And I'm not saying this is a bad thing.

Thanks, good post. Embarasing story.

Bolshevik tanks are good for Eastern European plain, but they suck in deserts. Western tanks have higher profile and can more easily cover behind dunes.

Not saying it was a decisive factor, but it surely helped the Jews.

Lets not forget that after Kennedy "fortunately" died, LBJ tripled the military aid to Israel in 1965 to 170 million and gave them 200 M48 Patton tanks and 2 dozen Skyhawk bomber jets.

yeah, which is why india, which also used a good number of soviet made tanks was able to use them effectively against pakistani manned M48s

Sounds like a good choice from LBJ. What makes you think Kennedy, a staunch supporter of Israel, would not support the Jews?

>Despite the qualitative and numerical superiority of Pakistani armour,[91] Pakistan was outfought on the battlefield by India, which made progress into the Lahore-Sialkot sector, whilst halting Pakistan's counteroffensive on Amritsar;[92][93] they were sometimes employed in a faulty manner, such as charging prepared defences during the defeat of Pakistan's 1st Armoured Division at Asal Uttar.

Such a minor advantage would not make up for Islamic impotency in modern warfare.

>Kennedy died
Actually the Israeli US alliance really started after 67 when Israel prooved it's worth to the yankies as an effective cold war ally. Seeing as USSR was suppling weapons to the arabs and taking over the region. Israel is one of the only US allies (including in Europe) they didn't need to propup with their own soldiers. Before that Israel's only ally was France and even than they turned on them right before the 67 war.
>what is oslo accords in 93
>what is camp david talks in 2001
>what is unilateral disengagement from gaza
Each time pro peace elements took power in Israel Palestinians made sure to take advantage and bomb and kill as many people they could to disctedit the Israeli left completely

not to mention export model Soviet tanks were like shitty ripoffs that had much weaker armour. Even Chinese export tanks that were based on Soviet designs were better than Soviet export tanks since the Chinks exported the actual model that they used, not a shitty downgraded version.

There's nothing wrong with the Arab, physically speaking.

Just look at the performance of the Arab Legion under Bagot-Glubb (British General). With the right leadership they do admirably well.

>no mention of this spectacular blunder

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War

Even a bunch of Africans in pickup trucks can defeat a modern army provided the army is comprised of Arabs.

Simple: Arabs have ZERO sense of stuff like logistics, staffwork, and anything else that lies beyond firing a weapon or operating a vehicle.

My brother and a buddy were stationed in the Middle East and the stories they told me about how inept Arabs are is mind-boggling. They really disdain the meat-and-potatoes aspects of a military like vehicle repair and maintenance for instance. They feel that it's beneath their dignity.

>Smelly savages vs the snake like cleverness of the khazar
hmmm I wonder....

>Each time pro peace elements took power in Israel Palestinians made sure to take advantage and bomb and kill as many people they could to disctedit the Israeli left completely
I think it's unfair to equate Hamas with Palestinian governing, Hamas wasnt exactly democratically elected to speak for the Palestinian people and it is in their own self-interest that they continue bombings, they have very insidious ulterior motives.

Billy Waugh, a former Green Beret and CIA operative with a career spanning multiple decades and international theatres of operations, spent some time in Libya as an advisor in the late 70's. He basically observed a non-functioning core of NCO's. Lazy arabs believe that their officers will do all the important work and so never develop discipline, tactical know-how, or mechanical knowledge of equipment. Contrast this with western militaries where the NCO's are the backbone of a functioning military force and you can easily see why Arabs are shit at warfare. Israel really has it too easy, they're a Western country surrounded by goatfuckers.

Except that Rabin asked Arafat repeatedly to arrest Ihia Ayash Hamas military wing commander that was responsible for the suicide bombings, giving him intel about his hiding places and Arafat claimed tgat he is not in Gaza. And Israelis continue to die in buss bombings discrediting Rabin completely and contributing to his assassination. Andcthen when Israel finds and kills Ayash in Gaza? He areanges and attends a mass funeral for Ayash and serves as main speaker praising him. A guy that is responsible for hundreds of Israelis killed. And there were hundreds of such cases.
What did Arafat do when Ehud Barak offered him statehood and half of Jerusalem? He demanded that Israel accepts 6 million Arabs as citizens breaking the negotiations and starting a suicide bombing campaign in union with Hamas, while using the armed troops he got under the agreement to attak Israeli positions.
And what happened after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza taking down settlements? Did it bring peace? No, Hamas won the elections took control in Gaza and all the international peacekeepers that were supposed to keep the peace fled home.
So really, they could have had a state long time ago. It's not their plan anyway. They want to win the war, it's a zero sum game for them. It could gave been admirable in a way, if they didn't bitch so much when they loose the wars they start and their situation gets repeatedly worse.

There is also a famous story from the 73 war. When Israelis were able to turn the table and took to the offencive in Syria, there was a point when Assad senior ordered the Republican Guards to retreat to Damascus opening the way for Israelis to encircle the regular divisions. The idea behind this was that he realised that he lost the war and that the soviets would preven Israel from marching on Damascus anyway. So now his priority was to preserve his best and most loyal division and allow the Israelis to massacre the rest of his army so after all ends he will be left in control and with the best troops in case a civil war starts.

A lot of the problems Arabs have with war are not so much Arab problems as they are third world dictatorship problem.Most Arab states are post colonial messes created by the English and French with the express intent of being ethnically and religiously fractious disasters lacking in legitimacy. These Arab states can't have well functioning armies because the illegitimacy of their countries means they can't have well functioning states. While "Why Arabs Lose Wars" may be racist and wrong about the underlying cause of the Arab nations sucking at war, it is entirely right about the how. The various problems it describes are precisely the problems that all third-world dictatorships armies, and indeed all civil institutions, have.

What if the arabs won, would the Israeli state cease to exist?

>Most Arab states are post colonial messes created by the English and French with the express intent of being ethnically and religiously fractious disasters lacking in legitimacy.

I thought diversity was our strenght. Are you implying that homogenous nation-states are more effective?

1948? Most likely yes, that was the stated goal of the war. It would depend on whether or not there was foreign intervention and the extent and the result of that intervention. It's possible that the British simply would not allow the Palestinians to conquer the Israeli territory, in which case your question is moot.

What is unclear also would be the fate of the Jews and the area as a whole. If they were allowed to live peacefully in Palestine, then its possible that Jews could have very quickly out competed Palestinians for demographic dominance and the State of Israel would have been declared democratically. Basically the reverse situation of today.

needs a higher forehead

The Arabs outnumbered Israelis in every war.

>....wait

It's not so much homogenous ethnicity as it is a homogenous national consciousness. To be fair ethnicity has historically been the easiest and fastest way to create such a consciousness. But places like the Americas have shown that with certain other factors a National Consciousness can be created through other means. The issue is that in the Middle-East people already have certain ethnic or tribal identities that are kept intact both by first colonial/now local dictators to prevent national awakening, and by these local Identities themselves in order to provide security against the former. A kind of Ouroboros of tragedy.

thanks.

Mindframe of a people is overlooked. Everyone can accept a German for acting "german". Certain traits, a sliding scale of virtue. Perhaps it is a fear of being accused of stereotyping that the same summation will never be said of people of color. 2017

>talks about cultural issue
>racism

Here's your (you). Now fuck off back to your r/AskHistorians. I mean look at fucking Iran-Iraq

>Have weapons and support from Murica
>Have chemical weapons
>More tanks and guns
>cant beat LITERAL human wave child soldiers

Arabs are terrible at 21st century conventional warfare and their track record shows this. Name one conventional war they won against a non arab foe in the last 70 years. I'll wait.

>the express intent of being ethnically and religiously fractious disasters lacking in legitimacy

Sykes Picot has become a bit of a meme. The borders were perfectly reasonable, emulating Ottoman vilayets but with more consideration for ethnic realities. The main evil was the way most colonial empires retain their power, by means of divide and conquer. Post colonial Arab History is pretty much defined by one group crushing another group. But after decades have passed, it becomes less convincing to blame the short lived Western mandates over the Middle East.

I wonder if Israel would fight back if the UN declared that the entire territory was now Palestine?

They say that Palestinians were wrong for fighting against the same decision.

reclaimed and eliminated the decadent leftists kuks from this thread

Which year did the west cease all involvement in the Middle East?

Decades ago?

>changing one letter triggers me

you mean like bomb UN hQ or what

I mean if they were told that the place they were living was now called Palestine and that they had to leave, would they do it peacefully?

Came here to mention it but I could not find the article so thanks..

Being inbred and inferior to masterrace Ashkenazi.

Gayrabs fucked goats while based Jews were splitting the atom.

no one can actually tell us that to back it up.

>Name one conventional war they won against a non arab foe in the last 70 years. I'll wait.

Lebanon 2006

Not even him, but I don't think you know what a conventional war is. Hezbollah is not a nation-state's army. It is, pretty much by definition, not a conventional war.

>Terrorism is conventional warfare!

Spotted Abdul about to prepare for his jihad

As a Latin American, I wonder how we are at warfare, we don't usually fight conventional wars too often.

How did the Argies fare at the Falklands War?

>How did the Argies fare at the Falklands War?
I think their only decent moment was fucking up the HMS Sheffield with an Exocet, but they were pretty much outclassed in every single way.

They kind of sucked, every force fought their own war separately. Still they managed to inflict losses. Their airforce was decent.
Colombia, Ecuador and Brazil are pretty good at jungle warfare and COIN

Firstly the Ottoman districts were not designed to form viable nation-states. Indeed the Turks were just as interested in and ultimately responsible for crushing Middle-Eastern National Identities as the Europeans were/are. Secondly even after the colonial era was officially over the former colonial powers (as well as newcomers the Soviets and Americans) stuck around and supported Tyrants and their resultant tyranny through both Cold War shenanigans as well as need for that sweet sweet oil. Even now you have places like Saudi Arabia kept in power through foreign military aid. Many states in the Mid-East (and Africa with places like Nigeria) are kept in existence because foreign actors support corrupt regimes in exchange for access to resources.

I'm glad you acknowledged that the problems in the Middle East aren't merely
>muh white man

Great book. Really shows the decline in fighting prowess since independence even - which is a trend one would likely see in many armies all over the third world.

It was more of a stalemate than a victory, was not even remotely conventional, and Hezbollah is trained by Persians anyway.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20
>24 late model MiG-21s flown by Soviet air defense pilots vs 16 Israeli fighters
>engagement lasts 3 minutes
>Russians loose 5 jets with 4 pilots killed (including the Squadron CO) for 1 Israeli Mirage getting damaged
>"The Egyptians themselves reacted with ill-concealed delight at the outcome of the engagement. They had previously suffered intense criticism of their own performance and boasts of superior Soviet skills, when in fact the Soviets had fallen for tactics the Egyptians were already familiar with."

One of the biggest memes about Israel is that they were outnumbered. 1948 ended over a decade of Jewish insurgency in which they built and equipped the Haganah (~50,000) which were the jewish army backbone.

You can't add up 20,000 Syrians on one side, 20,000 Egyptians on the far opposite side, 5,000 British-trained shabbos goys in the Jordanian west bank, and a few Palestinian rabble to creat an overwhelming Arab army. There was very little coordination, unlike the homogeneous jewish host.

how did you come up with those numbers?

White people are extremely good at war. Arabs are not. Its that simple.

>inb4 go back to /pol/

Jews are white?

Good one

Except the role of the British officers was to prevent any serious Arab invasion, at least by the Jordanians over whom they had the most control.

Western knowledge, tactics and training.

In 48 the stated goal was to massacre those jews who did not escape. And in the first part of the war when arabs made ganes, all Israeli settlements and neighborhoods that were captured were cleansed and destroyed. In the second part of the war Jews went on the offencive and did the same to the arabs but cherrypiked villages and neighborhoods they deemed as less hostile and left them in place for both internal ideological and external political reasons.
The idea that the British would intervene is not very realistic since the Arab states had pro British monarchies and the Arab legion was even lead by British officers core including the commander of the army. Fucking with British plans for switching from direct to proxy rule over the meadeast was the main reason USSR and US allowed unofficial supply of weapons to the Israelis.
In 67 the stated goal was again to destroy the Israeli state and ethnically cleanse it. Not clear if the powers could have stopped it. But even if they did, Jews would be treated even worse than minorities are currently treated in the meadeast and would flee or get slowly massacred.
In 73 Israel already had nuclear weapons and regardless, just as USSR intervened to stop a full Israeli victory, US would probably do the same so it was not a zero sum game anymore.

That makes them white?

Black men in the US army must be white too

>white people training you makes you white
Is that some Jewish physics right here

>I wonder if Israel would fight back if the UN declared that the entire territory was now Palestine?
>They say that Palestinians were wrong for fighting against the same decision.
No, the Arabs (who did not self identify as Palestinians in 48) fought against a decision to particion the land with them getting the majority of it.
Btw, arab victory at 48 wouldn't result in a Palestinian state anyway. Egypt intended to take the south, Syria viewd Palestine as Northen Syria and Jordan (who actually achived their war aims and didn't loose at all) annexed the west bank.

>Israeli doctrine relies on air superiority
>US troops rely on air superiority as well

Pets really do look like their owners.

Arabs didn't win a single conventional war since the Reconquista.

You really need to twist the fuck out of the definition of victory to say hizballah won.
>150 kia vs 1000
>begging for a ceasefire until the UN imposes it
>war ends with Israeli troops occuping south Lebanon
That's called a stalemate with a western army not uprooting a guerilla organisation in a foreign country because there is no political will to occupy it. There was absolutely nothing Hizballah could do militarily to stop IDF from steamrolling to the Lebanon Syrian border except conducting a long insurgency with the hope of eroding support for a foreign war and counting on a western army not going into full Russian in Chechnia mode.

...

Iraq destroyed Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Iran is literally 4 times the population of Iraq and had a bunch of advanced american weaponry from the Shah's army, they were the only Army in the world besides the UK that fielded the Chieftain tanks. Iraq had inferior soviet weaponry and a much smaller population.

Smaller countries usually get obliterated in long attrition wars, but in this war, Iran was on the retreat after 8 years in 1988 and was pushed out of Iraq whereas Iraq practically captured the whole Iranian tank force in tact.

Iranian casualties were like 1million to Iraq's 300,000.

Iraq's republican guard was actually very well trained and one of the best fighting forces in the region by the end of the war.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nasr