Why Isreal Wins Its Wars

[Grimberht]

The main reason for their early success was that the Arabs country hated each other more than they hated Israël.

Until Nasser got his butt kick, Arabs in general thought they could destroy the young nation at will...

Plus Britain, the UN and US had to support Israël when they realize the position in which they "dropped" the jews in a danger zone!

Plus most arab nation were farely young and in a lots of cases less organized then Israeli were.

 

[Grimberht]

What about the Arab-Israeli war of 1948?

Truly, courage and determination... and after the truce... add occidental weaponry and support

 

[Louis XXIV]

with Iran they didn't fare that badly. I'd say they wouldn't fare too bad against Israel either. Though, still... arabs have an issue with air forces

Considering the state of disorganization and turmoil Iran was in at that time, they should have done well against Iran, not just not fair badly.

 

[joycem10]

An interesting article in which the author outlines a number of cultural problems which may contribute to the relative ineffectiveness of arab armies.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs2.html

On the other side, I've read a number of times (sorry dont remember the sources) that the US Army considers the staff work of the IDF terrible. While they seem to excell on a tactical level and have good individual leadership, they have a serious lack of strategic direction.

 

[say1988]

Part 1 deals with the Armoured Forces

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95146

Part 2 with the Air Force

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96227

Some of the photos that appeared in the Air Force article were links to a now defunct site so they may take a little time to be fixed. I hadn't noticed that until today though so you're query has helped me out

Excellent articles. Great reads.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

An interesting article in which the author outlines a number of cultural problems which may contribute to the relative ineffectiveness of arab armies.

the guy seems to have common sense

 

[Aegis]

Because they have a lot of western allies and support?

So did Vietnam. Look at how poorly the South Vietnamese army fared in comparison.

 

[Tee Kay]

So did Vietnam. Look at how poorly the South Vietnamese army fared in comparison.

A very different kind of war, facing a very different kind of enemy.

 

[GoodGame]

A little while ago I was researching the history of Israel. After the founding of Israel in 1948 it has participated in numerous wars with the nations of the Middle East. Israel in almost all of these conflicts was outnumbered and yet still either come out on top or proved to be an even match for the Arab coalitions laid against them.

Could anyone tell me why Israel consistently performed well in these wars?

I thought that the one time they didn't do well at the start (Yom Kippur War), they underestimated the arabs strengths. Though on wikipedia it says Israel's strategic planning relied on the option to do a pre-emptive strike on Egypt, but when it was a real option they feared they would lose all international support if they launched. So you might say the one time they were hamstrung by their international (i.e. mostly USA) dependence for support.

I'd say one of their main strengths is mandatory military service; that might not be a strength for say all nations, but it makes a lot of sense for a smaller nation. They also generally seek a technology edge over their neighbors, which I think they partially filled through playing their battles as cold war battles to win the technology support of the USA.

 

[Arwon]

What about the Arab-Israeli war of 1948?

It was a lot more even-matched than popular belief usually has it.

 

[chad187]

In more modern times have the Arabs got closer in strength militarily compared to the Israel or have the Israelis further the gap?

 

[Joecoolyo]

Well, with the recent completion of the Trophy active protection system for Israel's tanks, the gap can only have been furthered.

 

[Shekwan]

Democracies beat authoritarian states when it comes to war. The citizen soldier who has rights to fight for tends to fight better, especially on home turf.

There are of course some exceptions.

 

[12blank]

Israel owes its existence to the patriotism of its citizens and the superior organization of the Haganah (the precursor to the Israeli Defense Force) only managed to hold on to small swaths of territory. Ben Gurion was forced to change conscription rules in order to get a decent fighting force. And even then it was only because 1 in every 8 Israelis were fighting that the Haganah managed to win. And if anyone thinks that only getting 1 out of every 8 people in the entire population to fight is a small accomplishment, at the height of WWII Germany, a huge militaristic war machine, managed to get around 25% of its population to fight. However, Israel wasn't even a unified nation and it managed to get almost 15% of its population into an organized and cohesive defensive organization. If the Arabs had commanded that kind of commitment and loyalty from their own citizens and organized themselves into an actual alliance, Israel would've easily been destroyed.

 

[r16]

regarding the lack of airfield shelters in 1967 , that war is the exact reason why they suddenly sprouted in any military airfield anywhere afterwards . Despite all the billions they consume to think ahead , militaries are extremely conservative , it always takes a disaster to set them off .

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well, with the recent completion of the Trophy active protection system for Israel's tanks, the gap can only have been furthered.

Not really. The Egyptians for example, have M1 Abrams tanks now, while Israel had noted trouble facing Hezbollah in direct conflict. The gap is MUCH closer now, with the balance of power probably laying in the Arab states. Them uniting for a war again however is improbable.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Not really. The Egyptians for example, have M1 Abrams tanks now, while Israel had noted trouble facing Hezbollah in direct conflict. The gap is MUCH closer now, with the balance of power probably laying in the Arab states. Them uniting for a war again however is improbable.

Yeah, but:

1) Egypt and Israel won't attack each other, they already promised that in the Peace Treaty they signed waaay back.

2) They may have Abrams, but they still don't have the trophy, which as tested, destroys any projectile heading towards the tank. Rendering rocket launchers and anti-tank missiles useless.

3) The only reason we haven't been able to destroy the Hezbollah is that every time we attack, the world screams at us for crimes against humanity (and other exaggerated things), and generally we don't have time to complete the Operation because of it.

 

[Verbose]

Yeah, but:

1) Egypt and Israel won't attack each other, they already promised that in the Peace Treaty they signed waaay back.

2) They may have Abrams, but they still don't have the trophy, which as tested, destroys any projectile heading towards the tank. Rendering rocket launchers and anti-tank missiles useless.

3) The only reason we haven't been able to destroy the Hezbollah is that every time we attack, the world screams at us for crimes against humanity (and other exaggerated things), and generally we don't have time to complete the Operation because of it.

It's dangerous to believe your own propaganda you know.

 

[Joecoolyo]

It's dangerous to believe your own propaganda you know.

 

[Dragonlord]

An interesting article in which the author outlines a number of cultural problems which may contribute to the relative ineffectiveness of arab armies.

A very interesting read, thanks for the link!