Why are Arab nations so shit at fighting Israel?

[Johnny Canuck3]

"generally forgotten today that the Soviet Union played a key role in the birth of the state of Israel, by supporting the partition of Palestine and lending the Jewish state military and political support during the War of Independence. This policy represented a startling reversal of the Soviet Union's previous hardline stand against Zionism (which had been based on the notion that Zionism was a form of Western imperialism), and, not unlike the Hitler-Stalin pact, caused considerable upheaval within the Communist world. Why did Stalin so dramatically change course? As explained in this fascinating excerpt from an article by an anti-Zionist Marxist, it had nothing to do with any belief in the Zionist cause, but with the Soviets' geopolitical aim to push Britain out of the Mideast while preventing the United States from replacing Britain as the dominant power there."

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001808.html

 

[phildwyer]

Simple: Israel is always fighting for its life.

 

[phildwyer]

A factor that hasn't been discussed is motivation of the troops. When a country is surrounded, outnumbered, with it's back to the sea & is fighting for it's survival, they fight real hard.

Ah yes, pretty much what I said. Every Israeli feels that his/her personal survival, and that of their families, are at stake in every war they fight. The Arabs don't.

 

[david dissadent]

Ah yes, pretty much what I said. Every Israeli feels that his/her personal survival, and that of their families, are at stake in every war they fight. The Arabs don't.

For them it is survival of there religion and race.

 

[newharper]

The Colonel is in pessimistic mood.

"anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems" The Hizbullah Lebanese are preparing for renewal of their war with Israel. They are building new fortified "belts" and "stand alone" fortified zones. The "anti-aircraft equipment" is going to make a big difference this time. Israeli pilots are not used to being shot at from the ground while trying to attack targets. Pilots' aim is not as good under those conditions. Ask a pilot if that is not true.

What are they doing in the Bekaa Valley? Among other things they are training for how they will fight this time. I presume that someone is watching this?

What are the Israelis doing? They are preparing for a drive into Syria across the Golan heights, a "decisive" battle with the Syrians between there and Damascus and then a left "hook" into Lebanon to execute a "turning movement" against Hizbullah.

Will that coincide with American action against Iran? Someone should ask the Chenians that. pl

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/

Well it's that time of year.

 

[RhymnRzn]

Simple: Israel is always fighting for its life.

Interestingly, nationalist Zionism is not Biblically mandated. And for that cause, they are not properly set to win anything like a fight.

 

[London_Calling]

A factor that hasn't been discussed is motivation of the troops. When a country is surrounded, outnumbered, with it's back to the sea & is fighting for it's survival, they fight real hard.

As described by a US or UK General, Israel has a third rate conscript army with state of the art weaponry, and has been fortunate to fight 4th rate rabble.

For them it is survival of there religion and race.

Ah yes, the Steven Speilberg school of sentimentalised politics.

What you argue might or might not have been the case, say, 25 years ago, it certainly isn't now. Israel today is concerned with being the regional economic and military superpower - behind that is, of course, a desire for greater security, but no more so than most.

They do, however, have as many nuclear war heads as they might ever want, so I don't think they're overly concerned about "being pushed back into the sea", as some like to put it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

They do, however, have as many nuclear war heads as they might ever want, so I don't think they're overly concerned about "being pushed back into the sea", as some like to put it.

The US has lots of nukes. Didn't stop 911.

 

[Detroit City]

They simply get pwned by the Israelis every time.

the arabs are actually fighting the US, not Israel...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

the arabs are actually fighting the US, not Israel...

In the early years, the US wasn't even backing Israel.

 

[Detroit City]

In the early years, the US wasn't even backing Israel.

"On May 14, 1948, the United States, under President Truman, became the first country to extend de facto recognition to the State of Israel. "

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

"On May 14, 1948, the United States, under President Truman, became the first country to extend de facto recognition to the State of Israel. "

I mean backing in the important way, ie, providing guns.

 

[DarthSydodyas]

The US has lots of nukes. Didn't stop 911.

Nukes deter countries, not fanatics.

 

[newharper]

The US has lots of nukes. Didn't stop 911.

" 911" was grim, totemic, but hardly existential.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Nukes deter countries, not fanatics.

Exactly. And the same applies to Israel's nukes.

 

[ZAMB]

Exactly. And the same applies to Israel's nukes.

Except that Israel's nukes were developed secretly, without any IAEA inspections or signing the NPT. People who worked at, or live near the reactor are getting sick in the last few years. Iran co-operates with the inspectors and still gets accused of the crimes that the US turns a blind eye to in Israel, even though there is no evidence.

Vanunu was imprisoned for years for telling the world about this programme, and I think was recently imprisoned again for talking to Westerners. Israel's nukes are not for defence - they are for intimidation.

 

[newharper]

Exactly. And the same applies to Israel's nukes.

So are you agreeing that Israel is not under existential threat?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Except that Israel's nukes were developed secretly, without any IAEA inspections or signing the NPT. People who worked at, or live near the reactor are getting sick in the last few years. Iran co-operates with the inspectors and still gets accused of the crimes that the US turns a blind eye to in Israel, even though there is no evidence.
Vanunu was imprisoned for years for telling the world about this programme, and I think was recently imprisoned again for talking to Westerners. Israel's nukes are not for defence - they are for intimidation.

What are you smoking?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So are you agreeing that Israel is not under existential threat?

Christ.

No, I'm saying that weapons that might be fearful to 'institutional' enemies with infrastructures, like countries, don't necessarily deter the 'non institutional' enemies, that are not country-based.

 

[ZAMB]

What are you smoking?

Have you ever even read the NPT? Iran has done nothing which is not allowed in the NPT. The same can't be said for Israel, which is why it has never signed it.

 

[newharper]

Christ.

No, I'm saying that weapons that might be fearful to 'institutional' enemies with infrastructures, like countries, don't necessarily deter the 'non institutional' enemies, that are not country-based.

right, terrific;

however that hardly deals with the existential issue now does it.

 

[ZAMB]

Nukes deter countries, not fanatics.

Then why is the US constantly developing new weapons? They have enough to wipe out the planet already. They are also mega-hypocritical about it - especially with regard to Iran and other ME countries.

To quote Harold Pinter

The US is at this moment developing advanced systems of "weapons of mass destruction" and it prepared to use them where it sees fit. It has more of them than the rest of the world put together. It has walked away from international agreements on biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow inspection of its own factories. The hypocrisy behind its public declarations and its own actions is almost a joke.

The United States believes that the three thousand deaths in New York are the only deaths that count, the only deaths that matter. They are American deaths. Other deaths are unreal, abstract, of no consequence.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17452.htm

 

[ZAMB]

What are you smoking?

Tracked down this statement by the IAEA inspectors especially for you, JC2. Not that I really expect you to ever admit you might be wrong. Can't find the one where they accuse Bushco. of twisting their data - but it's probably on another thread somewhere.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said on Thursday night that Iran is not considered as a nuclear threat to the world.

In an interview with Al-Arabia television network, he said the country poses no nuclear threats to any country around the globe.

Iran's problems should be resolved through comprehensive talks with all parties, he underlined.

Military conflict does not help resolve the issue, he said, adding that it only will lead to a regional catastrophe and will make the situation more complicated.

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0703307094181653.htm

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

right, terrific;

however that hardly deals with the existential issue now does it.

Yes it does; Israel may have come up with defences that deter the 'institutional' threats to its existence, but not the potential non institutional threats.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Tracked down this statement by the IAEA inspectors especially for you, JC2. Not that I really expect you to ever admit you might be wrong. Can't find the one where they accuse Bushco. of twisting their data - but it's probably on another thread somewhere.


http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0703307094181653.htm

How is it that the IAEA had no idea of Libya's nuclear program, until Khadaffi came clean and told the world about it?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

How is it that the IAEA had no idea of Libya's nuclear program, until Khadaffi came clean and told the world about it?

Because it was inactive, with all the bits (minus a few absolutely essential ones that he didn't have) sitting in warehouses?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807fa_fact_coll

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

From the article:

The focus of Lerch’s case is not Iran but a separate enterprise, to supply Libya with nuclear equipment. According to the German government’s indictment, Lerch, beginning in the late nineteen-nineties, joined A. Q. Khan and others in a secret plan to manufacture and then ship to Libya a plant to enrich uranium. The scheme collapsed after a tip to American and British intelligence led to a raid on a German freighter, the BBC China, in Italy in October, 2003. Investigators found enough nuclear goods bound for Libya to make a damning case; confronted with the evidence, the country’s dictator, Muammar Qaddafi, who had been seeking an accommodation with the United States, agreed to give up all weapons of mass destruction in exchange for an eventual end to economic sanctions.

 

[ZAMB]

How is it that the IAEA had no idea of Libya's nuclear program, until Khadaffi came clean and told the world about it?

You're changing the subject - totally irrelevant answer, as usual.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In the summer of 2004, Bush declared that the A. Q. Khan network was defunct. “We put them out of business,” he said. In fact, Khan’s enterprise—dispersed, diverse, and in some respects politically protected—has proved difficult to untangle. The President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, pardoned Khan after the Libya project was exposed, and has refused to allow I.A.E.A. investigators to question him freely.

-article