jingofever wrote:The Egyptian military had WWII era tanks, planes, armored cars, troop carriers, and artillery, more than the Israelis had. The only possible WWI era weapon that I can see was used is the Lee-Enfield rifle, which the Israelis also used. The claim of deficient weapons is probably just a self-serving myth.
First, Egypt was still effectively under British occupation, and the Egyptian army was very small and untried, and badly under-equipped. The British did not supply the Egyptian army with any but the most rudimentary weapons, and it was not possible for the Egyptian government to source weapons and equipment on its own. In order to respond to the Palestinians' desperate calls for help, it was obliged to buy weapons from various private merchants, war profiteers whose stockpiles mostly consisted of old or malfunctioning ordnance left over from WWI and, to a lesser extent, WWII. The other Arab states were in similar or even worse straits.
In fact, one of the factors that led to the overthrow of the Egyptian monarchy was the widespread resentment among army officers who had fought in Palestine, who felt that under the monarchy and the British, Egypt and the Arab nation were left dangerously unable to defend themselves. The obsolete or old weapons performed so poorly that rumors spread that the merchants who sold them to the army had conspired with the British or the Zionists to deliberately supply the Egyptian side with malfunctioning weapons. Gamal Abdelnasser, who founded the Free Officers' Movement, along with many of his colleagues first became politicized after his shattering experience in Palestine.
In contrast, in the years leading up to the declaration of Israel, the Zionists had been building up huge stockpiles of weapons and a well-trained network of militias trained and led by battle-hardened officers just fresh from the battle-fields of WWII, where many of them had fought with the British or other Allied Forces. They were supplied by a massive influx of weapons smuggled in from all over Europe via the Jewish mafia network run by Meyer Lansky and others, and also raised money for the Zionist militias via "Israel Bonds" and through other means (such as the "Transfer Agreement" between the Nazis and Zionists).
By the middle of May 1948, the total number of Zionist fighters (regular and irregular) was 50,000; in contrast, the total number of Arab fighters all combined totaled less than 33,000. This numerical imbalance was vastly compounded by the even larger discrepancy in the quality and quantity of weapons, and in the training, experience and level of preparation of the military cadres and fighters.
A second element in the traditional telling of the war is that the Zionist forces were outnumbered and outgunned. In fact, the opposite is true. Having had more than a ten-year head start in armament procurement and creation, they easily outgunned Palestinian forces and even outnumbered the combatants of all five invading armies by fully half, or 50,000 troops to 33,000. In addition, the Zionists' 30,000 machine guns, 54 million rounds of ammunition, 800 armored vehicles, and 25 war planes offered far greater firepower than anything the Arabs had. Finally, the Jews were better organized. With the collapse of the Irgun-Stern, they fought under a single command, whereas the Arab armies were divided into five mutually antagonistic forces, each distrustful of the intentions of the other. ...Finally, the Jewish forces -- largely defending or attacking from a narrow base -- enjoyed shorter internal supply and defense lines, a critical ingredient in any war.
-- Encyclopedia of Conflicts Since World War II, by James Ciment ("Israel: War of Independence 1948-1949", page 1003)
jingofever wrote:And Egypt was often partnered with the Soviet Union and only ever invaded Israel when Israel had to defend multiple fronts.
Nearly every inch of "Israeli" territory was taken by force, at the point of a gun, whether the gun was in the hands of the British Empire or the Zionist gangs. The Zionists have invaded Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, and occupied territory illegally, and have even illegally annexed the territories of other countries.
Egypt has never invaded any other country. In 1948, Egypt was responding to the cries of help of the native Palestinians who were being ethnically cleansed by Zionist invaders, far beyond even the lines of the UN partition plan. For example, Nasser and the other Egyptian officers and troops were fighting the Zionists in Al-Falluja, in Gaza, which was Palestinian, under the UN partition plan.
In 1973, Egypt and Syria fought to get their own territory back, which Israel had stolen. Neither Egypt nor Syria fought outside their own sovereign territory, which was illegally occupied by Israel. Thus, in 1973 Egypt attacked the Israeli occupation troops in Sinai ONLY.
Poor "Israel"! It was forced to "defend" against Syria the territory it had stolen from Syria, and at the same time to "defend" against Egypt the territory it had stolen from Egypt! Not to mention those exasperating Palestinians who refuse to die "peace"fully! What's a thug to do?
jingofever wrote:So it was a military assault and not a surprise war of aggression?
DUH. Israel's invasion and occupation of the Egyptian territory of Sinai was, according to international law, an Act of Aggression. So Egypt's surprise assault on Israeli troops illegally occupying Sinai was a War of Liberation by Egypt, of its own land. Once again, you seem to have this odd idea that Israel has the right to steal, and its victims have no right to fight back. Bottom line: in 1967, Israel launched a "surprise war of aggression" in which it stole the lands of sovereign states. In 1973, the victims attacked the aggressor
on their own land to get their legal property back.
jingofever wrote: You conveniently leave out the Israeli counterattack where they retook the Sinai. This war lasted for more than six days. It is no surprise that an army can make rapid gains with a sneak attack. The trick is to hold on to those gains, which Egypt was unable to do even though Israel was fighting the Syrians on another front. It was like they got sucker punched and had one hand tied behind their back but still won the fight. While the United States was supplying Israel the Soviets were supplying Egypt, but Israel had already repulsed the Egyptian advance before any American aid was received. And American equipment does not make an effective fighting force, just look at the Iraqi army.
Yes, they were sucker-punched, because they were drunk on their own myth of invincibility, and they underestimated the Arabs' intelligence and determination to fight for their land and their rights. They thought the Bar-Lev barrier was indestructible. And although it's true that the Egyptians were fighting with Soviet weapons and planes, the Soviets had been rudely expelled from Egypt by Sadat in the run-up to the war. In contrast, America mobilized and launched a massive air-lift to Israel during the war, and put its global forces on the highest (nuclear) alert, ready to literally burn down the world in support of Israel. The war made clear that Israel had the full and limitless backing of the US, while the Soviets' hands were tied.
jingofever wrote:It certainly does help. Any external assistance provided to the Israelis diminishes their achievements, any external assistance provided to the Egyptians is not to be spoken of. A surprise attack by the Israelis diminishes their achievements, a surprise attack by the Egyptians is a brilliant tactical move. That Israel always had to fight on multiple fronts is irrelevant and not worth mentioning.
All of "Israel"s wars have been wars of aggression, and all the wars against Israel were in self-defense. In the case of Egypt and Israel, furthermore, it is ridiculous to compare the endless and lavish support by the US of Israel in the commission of its criminal assaults on neighboring countries and peoples, with the much more modest support Egypt received from the Soviets in its struggle to defend itself and its sovereign territory. In 1973, the only war initiated by Egypt, the Egyptian army penetrated and fought inside its own sovereign territory that was illegally taken and occupied by Israel.
Given the vast disparity in terms of money and the quality and quantity of weapons supplied to Israel versus all that's ever been supplied to Israel's victims combined, the Egyptians' military successes have indeed been brilliant. We Egyptians are justly very proud of them, and of the fact that Egypt is not a rogue, criminal, thieving criminal entity, but a nation with an army that is capable and determined to defend every inch of its sovereignty and land, in accordance with international law and every moral code known to Man.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
