Zionist Nationalist wrote:It does not matter whatever the Arabs planned to attack Israel or not but they did everything to make it look like they are preparing to invade Israel
Rhetoric aside, this is nonsense as I've pointed out. All arab deployments were
defensive in character. If Egypt, for example, really wanted to make it look like it was preparing to invade Israel, it would've positioned its armored forces close to the border instead of in reserve behind the infantry.
in 67 Israel was seriously preparing for a long term war with massive casualties so the best form of defense was to attack
Actually had Israel's goal been
defense the best strategy would've been to let the arabs attack with their armor and destroy it with superior tank gunnery and maneuver. The arabs were better at static defense than maneuver so attacking them actually resulted in more casualties.
Suntzu wrote:
Fortunately for the Israelis, the Arabs are second only to the French at running away.
That's fallacious. A number of times, the Israelis conceded the arabs fought
bravely but not
well. Pollack rejected alleged cowardice as the cause of arab defeats. It is true that the Egyptian retreat order led to a catastrophic rout, but mainly because of a failure of communications hence lack of guidance from higher authority.