Why Arabs lost all its wars to Israel despite outnumbering Israel in weapons and manpower?

[The SC]

The fact that you had to give up Sinai means that you have lost the war and Egypt won it,, this not debatable.. only if you want talk just for talk which no one here is interested here.. you can not get any facts to refute post #477.. so spare us talk fo nothing an quote me when you have facts not opinion..

 

[DavidSling]

The fact that you had to give up Sinai means that you have lost the war and Egypt won it,, this not debatable.. only if you want talk just for talk which no one here is interested here.. you can not get any facts to refute post #477.. so spare us talk fo nothing an quote me when you have facts not opinion..

The fact that we give up sinai is a sign of our effort of peace, has little to do with war results.

 

[patman]

inferior equipment and training, Israel gets everything state of the art

 

[Stuttgart001]

The statement of SC do give some other reasons.
A person who lacks the courage to face his failure could not learn and grow up. So do a state.

 

[The SC]

Cease-fire does matter. But Egyptian army could annihilate them before the ceasefire. Or Egypt could not agree on a ceasefire until the trapped Isreali troops were smashed.
I think it is not a violation to a Islam.
Cease-fire would only be available under the situation that both sides agree.
Why Sadat gave up the advantage on the battlefield as you said and wanted a ceasefire which was not implemented strictly by Isreal ?


I have no bias to Arabs. I am just confused why only Egyptian see them as the winner and other Arabian do think so.
It is a little arrogant to think Egyptian could represent all Arabian.

And I do not deny that Egypt is the winner , but Arabian obviously is not.

The fact is that before smashing them, you ask them if they want peace in a form of a ceasefire, do you understand that? War is a continuation of diplomacy, and if objectives and peace are achieved, then it is a return to diplomacy..

In war to reach a ceasefire one side is most of the time forced to accept it by international diplomacy when the other side has already agreed to it.. Usraelis attempted twice (with the complicity of the US who turned a blind eye on the front for 24 hours after the 1st ceasefire was announced) to violate ceasefires to get an upper hand somewhere somewhat, but they have failed and had to accept the final ceasefire.. So even an ultimate deception didn't work for them.. And yes Islam forbids further bloodshed if the enemy surrenders, asks for peace or agrees to peace..

Syria didn't lose either, they came to a still-mate, Syria got the Golan height for a few days and lost it back.. but nothing could the Usraeli achieve other than retaking the Golan height with a huge bloodshed..
Other Arabs were there in very small numbers as support.. Do not forget that most Usraeli citizens get mobilized in war, they can field a million man easily, but thye do not have the dept nor the economy to sustain a prolonged war.. thus without the unconditional support by the West, they are very vulnerable..

 

[Hell NO]

Egypt actually lost the war, if we take into account they wanted to destroy Israel. Unless, if Egyptians only wanted Sinai; then it was a partial victory.

In my opinion in '73 Israel has won the war though paying heavy cost to her reputation.



What a load of BS. Both the numerical and technological superiority was with the Arab States. Soviet Union supplied them with the latest of weapons only Israelis dreamt about.

You mean MIG21 , sagar ,SA2 and T55 and T62.
Against f4 phantom, TOW, hawks and m60.

 

[The SC]

You mean MIG21 , sagar ,SA2 and T55 and T62.
Against f4 phantom, TOW, hawks and m60.

We shouldn't feed these trolls, just refer them to post # 477, if they still argue after that.. you can be sure of their trolling..They are hurting from the facts, we shouldn't hurt them more..

In geo politics everyone has their supporters. Why do you think Arabs performed slightly better in 73, massive military support by the soviets especially SAMs which took a huge toll initially of the IAF, but the israelis recovered and turned the tables on the Arabs esp Egypt. facts don't lie. The only thing l agree with is that the lsraeli aura of invincibility created in 67 was shattered.

Did you read post # 477 bro?

 

[Stuttgart001]

In war to reach a ceasefire one side is most of the time forced to accept it by international diplomacy when the other side has already agreed to it..

OK. I can see it is that Sadat was played by Isreali who use a ceasefire to take a break.

Usraelis attempted twice (with the complicity of the US who turned a blind eye on the front for 24 hours after the 1st ceasefire was announced) to violate ceasefires to get an upper hand somewhere somewhat, but they have failed and had to accept the final ceasefire..

You said the Isreali troops were trapped and encircled and Egyptian force had an advantage over them.
On such a condition, Isreal violated the ceasefire and attack Egyptian army initiatively.
Then even if the Isreali violated the ceasefire, Sadat did not want counter back and just hold positions.
What a saint!

Dude, do you really believe what you said?

So even an ultimate deception didn't work for them.. And yes Islam forbids further bloodshed if the enemy surrenders, asks for peace or agrees to peace..

I am afraid a ceasefire is far away from surrender.

Syria didn't lose either, they came to a still-mate, Syria got the Golan height for a few days and lost it back.. but nothing could the Usraeli achieve other than retaking the Golan height with a huge bloodshed..

Egypt got sinai back 6 years later and you claimed that proved you won.
Syrian territory didn't lose just because they step on their territory temporarily.

I accept your definition of the word "win".
I am curious how you define the word "lose".

Other Arabs were there in very small numbers as support..

Other Arabian states provided manpower and cash and armament no matter more or less .I think they wouldn't give a penny if they would have known what's Sadat's plan as you claimed.

Do not forget that most Usraeli citizens get mobilized in war,

Israel does have a high efficient national defense mobilization system.

they can field a million man easily, but thye do not have the dept nor the economy to sustain a prolonged war.. thus without the unconditional support by the West, they are very vulnerable..

But they can always get the support because of their outstanding diplomacy .
Even other nations gave their support.
Israel should hold on until the support was transported and distributed to their Soliders.
If not, all the support would belong to Egypt and Syria.

 

[Ryuzaki]

Israeli jews have very high fertility rate,their population has quadrupled in last 50 years,soon their population will be equivalent to Iraq or Syria

 

[Beny Karachun]

You mean MIG21 , sagar ,SA2 and T55 and T62.
Against f4 phantom, TOW, hawks and m60.

You forgot something, the number of each weapon.
Most of the Israeli aircraft were Mirages, we barely had any TOWs and they only entered in the end of the war, 75 Hawk missiles were fired and they only shot down 12-24 Arab aircraft, they were very ineffective, and most of our tanks were the Centurions rather than M-60s (By the way, none of them had night vision sights, but the T-62s did, a huge advantage for the Arabs)
On the other hand, the USSR sold the Arabs hundreds of MiG 21s, the Sagars actually were used in the war, unlike the TOW missiles, the SA-2 accounted more aircraft kills than the actual Egyptian airforce, the USSR sold Syria and Egypt THOUSANDS of T-62s.

Israeli jews have very high fertility rate,their population has quadrupled in last 50 years,soon their population will be equivalent to Iraq or Syria

We have the highest population growth in the west and higher than many Eastern nations

 

[Gomig-21]

The fact that we give up sinai is a sign of our effort of peace, has little to do with war results.

It had everything to do with the war results, that being that Israel was forced to make peace with Egypt because of this war. That's quite obvious. Would Israel have accepted any peace initiative without a war that destroyed the Bar-Lev line, caused considerable Israeli casualties and POW's and a war that by the end of hostilities showed the battleground gains unchanged for the Egyptian army while Israel was forced to withdraw almost to the passes to make room for a UN buffer zone?

Does that look like the result of Egypt losing the war? And before anyone claims this was a "gift" from the Israelis due to US pressure to gain Egyptian favor...please. That's an insult to any sane person's intelligence. Had Israel held any viable military advantage, it would've insisted that Egyptian troops retreat back across the canal and the buffer zone be implemented on the western edge of the canal, at the least. Granted the amount of territory Egypt gained was not huge, compared to the entire Sinai, but it had to deal with a very difficult, logistical operation in the crossing of the canal. This was something the Israelis didn't need to deal with when they invaded the Sinai in 1967. Much easier to run across a landscape without a body of water in between that acts as a cut-off line, one of several reason for a limited objective. The difference in SAM ranges and the quality between both air forces were certainly the other major factors to limit the scope of the war, however, the fact that Egypt was able to hold its gained territories is emblematic of the result of this war.

 

[DavidSling]

It had everything to do with the war results, that being that Israel was forced to make peace with Egypt because of this war. That's quite obvious. Would Israel have accepted any peace initiative without a war that destroyed the Bar-Lev line, caused considerable Israeli casualties and POW's and a war that by the end of hostilities showed the battleground gains unchanged for the Egyptian army while Israel was forced to withdraw almost to the passes to make room for a UN buffer zone?

Does that look like the result of Egypt losing the war? And before anyone claims this was a "gift" from the Israelis due to US pressure to gain Egyptian favor...please. That's an insult to any sane person's intelligence. Had Israel held any viable military advantage, it would've insisted that Egyptian troops retreat back across the canal and the buffer zone be implemented on the western edge of the canal, at the least. Granted the amount of territory Egypt gained was not huge, compared to the entire Sinai, but it had to deal with a very difficult, logistical operation in the crossing of the canal. This was something the Israelis didn't need to deal with when they invaded the Sinai in 1967. Much easier to run across a landscape without a body of water in between that acts as a cut-off line, one of several reason for a limited objective. The difference in SAM ranges and the quality between both air forces were certainly the other major factors to limit the scope of the war, however, the fact that Egypt was able to hold its gained territories is emblematic of the result of this war.

Israel wanted peace even before 48 wars, 67 wars, has little to do with the war.
it's the egyptians pride who needed some repair

 

[Hossiiee]

Your grandfather was right about that, but the Moroccan forces after a valiant fight, found themselves without air cover and were bombarded by the Usraelis.. I won't tell what they did to the Usraelis they have encountered in he Golan heights.. there were just too many horrible stories.. So, in brief there are no Arabs to blame in this instance, they were all bombarded by the New planes and even American pilots in them!!!

Do u have this from a source ? If u have I would like to read it.

 

[Gomig-21]

Israel wanted peace even before 48 wars, 67 wars, has little to do with the war.
it's the egyptians pride who needed some repair

Talking about this war, right? Once Sadat became president in 1970, a year later he offered a peace proposal to the UN to submit to Israel which wanted nothing to do with it. Then came this war, then Sadat offered peace again and now Israel accepts. Coincidence?

 

[Hossiiee]

The Golan Heights were never penetrated, hell, when the Syrians pushed against less than 17 Israeli tanks (Later 80 more joined in, this was a surprise attack afterall) the forces that attacked the Golan suffered losses of over 500 vehicles, while the Israelis only lost 60-80.
By the way, if we are "Nothing", how come even when you were united against us, we still won against you?

We only lost, because the muslim nations have always been divided.. No matter how advanced ur military technology or how big ur military is you are still nothing.. Just as an example from history, the roman and persian empire sustained crushing defeats when muslims were fully united.. And they were considered super powers at the time unlike you.
Also, it says more than enough that Israel and the CIA have thrown Syria in the war crisis it is in right now. If Israel was so 'strong' as u claim they are they would have crushed any threats surrounding them, but u lack the courage to do it. On the contrary:
1) You only bomb the gaza every couple of years not being able to stop the threat from a small group of freedom fighters (Al Qassam brigades)
2) Attack unarmed civilians who are throwing stones with heavon weaponry like tanks at Al Quds
3) Tried to attack Hezbollah in 2006 not able to stop the threat from Hezbollah, on the contrary you were losing big time and decided to bomb civilians and infrastructure.. Resulting in Hezbollah becoming stronger nowadays than it ever was.
4) Threatened to attack Iran for more than 10 years, not having the courage to do so.
5) As u were scared to take the risk of fighting the syrian regime head on, your secret forces have thrown Syria into chaos by planning and scheming..
6) Jews always have planned and schemed to divide the muslim unity from within, knowing they cant take muslim unity head on.

Btw.. Keep dreaming about ur 'multiplying'.. You have a long way to go