Fluffy said:
Thanks Booko, I had heard the military argument before but I lacked any details so was unable to tell how viable that argument really was. I would be very interested if you have any more info if it isn't too much trouble.
For the sake of argument, considering that Israel appeared to have taken on many other countries and beat them all in 6 days, doesn't this indicate that Israel was already more than capable of defeating its enemies in a pitched battle and therefore securing more military advantages was unnecessary?
Battles are rarely that simple. Did Napoleon lose at Waterloo because he was a bad general or because of a lack of men or other resources? Or was it just that it had rained the day before and he couldn't move his artillery through the muck and it showed up too late?
See what I mean?
If Israel beat several other nations with more men and materiel in '48, it may not mean they are better soldiers or had better generals. It may mean the IDF had better command and control, or better command of the air, or better intelligence, and yeah, sometimes you just get damned lucky.
It seems though there were 6 other nations against them in '48, the Arabs were uncoordinated in their attacks and with the exception of east Jerusalem couldn't bring their power to bear to overcome the IDF.
You could also argue that the Israelis were highly motivated. I mean, where else did they have to go? They knew what they had just endured in Europe.
If the same 6 Arab nations invaded today, the situation would be completely different, and I would not expect the same result. I'm pretty well convinced that Israel's unacknowledged nukes have provided quite a deterrent to further invasions.
The thing that troubles me greatly is the historically disconnected idea that the Arab countries attacked Israel for the benefit of freeing the Palestinian people and giving them a homeland of their own. Funny, they never bothered about it when Palestine was a territory of the British Empire.
The truth is that Jordan took the West Bank because the King of Jordan at the time thought it a great opportunity for a land grab. Ditto Egypt and Gaza. Syria and Golan. These nations did not invade Israel because they wanted to do something nice for the Palestinians and defend their Arab brothers and just leave when they got Palestine back for the Palestinians -- they did it because they perceived a vacuum of power and did what nations, Arab or otherwise, often do in such a situation -- take advantage of the situation to expand their territory and/or influence.
My previous impression was the Israel was a relatively strong nation military and that it had not come close to destruction in 1967. This impression is, admittedly, based on nothing factual but just on things I have picked up over the years as one does I suppose. Hopefully, that book will give me a more accurate impression of the situation in Israel.
If the IDF had been unable to dominate the air during the 6-day war, they would likely have been destroyed. Through better intelligence, excellent planning, and just plain guile, the Israeli Air Force was able to catch the Egyptian Air Force with their pants decidedly down and take them out. Otherwise, the Egyptians had the advantage of numbers (100,000 I think?) and to some extent the advantage of position. Without air superiority, the Egyptians were unable to move in any way to surprise or surround or disrupt the lines of the IDF, while the IDF had a free hand to go where they will. Instead of meeing Arab forces head on, they were able to encircle them or in cases go around them, which put the IDF at great advantage.
The IDF has always known that, due to the nature of the borders of Israel, the best defense is a good offense. If ever an Arab nation were able to mass on their border proper, they would have a very tough time of it. The IDF is not stupid enough to wait for that to happen.
It also accounts for why they have done things like occupy southern Lebanon in the past. It was the military equivalent of keeping your enemy at arm's length to keep from getting creamed.
The U.S. is a very large country. It's hard for us to imagine that our country could be destroyed in hours if the Canadians or Mexicans massed on our border with belligerent intent. We would have time to beat them back.
But as I type this sitting here in Atlanta, I'm thinking that my city is wider than the state of Israel in some places. I find it easy to understand the military perspective of the IDF. It would not take long to roll across from the west side of Atlanta over to where Captain Xeroid and I live. We wouldn't have time to get civilians away, even if we had somewhere to go, which the Israelis do not.
Viewed from a purely military perspective, I have a hard time finding fault with the IDF's doctrine. Some of the political policies, well that's another thread.
