The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[Toddsterpatriot]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War

Where does it say that Israel won that war?

In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..

let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?

This article needs additional citations for verification.

Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??

How about this:

“Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”

Why the Arabs were defeated

Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.

www.aljazeera.com

This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.

From the same article :


The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......

The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......

What did Egypt lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Lebanon lose?
What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?

They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
Nice duck BTW

Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?

They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.

That wasn't the question.

You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not. I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !

Holy obfuscation, Batman.

Yet another duck by Tinmore. What’s the record for ducks by one poster in one thread? It must be Tinmore.
Whenever he loses an argument, he tries to retreat by accusing the other poster is ducking .
I’m still waiting for just one link to contradict what I posted Tinmore . Just one..

No, you just are trying to move away from my questions.

I have answered everything you have asked me and provided several links. You have provided NOTHING . Just ducking and dancing. Now you are accusing me of exactly what you are doing , trying to retreat when you know you lost ..

What did Egypt lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Lebanon lose?
What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?

What did Egypt lose?

They got their ass kicked.

What did Syria lose?

They got their ass kicked.

What did Lebanon lose?

They got their ass kicked.

What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?

They got their ass kicked.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What did Israel win and from whom?

More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.

Israel had a war with nobody and did not win.

You don't make any sense.

Israel had a war with nobody

They didn't fight Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq?

and did not win.

Only if you call kicking Arab ass and winning more territory "not winning"......DURR

You run with that, Sparky.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What did Israel win and from whom?

More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.

Israel had a war with nobody and did not win.

You don't make any sense.

Israel had a war with nobody

They didn't fight Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq?

and did not win.

Only if you call kicking Arab ass and winning more territory "not winning"......DURR

You run with that, Sparky.

What did they win and who did they win it from?

 

[toastman]

What did Israel win and from whom?

More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.

Israel had a war with nobody and did not win.

You don't make any sense.

Israel had a war with nobody

They didn't fight Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq?

and did not win.

Only if you call kicking Arab ass and winning more territory "not winning"......DURR

You run with that, Sparky.

What did they win and who did they win it from?

What did Israel win and from whom?

More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.

Israel had a war with nobody and did not win.

You don't make any sense.

Israel had a war with nobody

They didn't fight Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq?

and did not win.

Only if you call kicking Arab ass and winning more territory "not winning"......DURR

You run with that, Sparky.

Tinmore is getting desperate now, he’s trying his best to retreat but he’s making even more a fool out for himself

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Outcomes
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The term "win" or "lose" in the regards to combat gains or losses is rather an obsolete line of thought and termonology. It is an unsophisticate and crude (over symplistic) way of stating the nature of territorial control, political achivements, and battle engagements.

What did Israel win and from whom?

More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.

(COMMENT)

When you talk about accomplishments at the stratigic advvantages of a region (militarily economically, diplomatically, territrorially, etc), you are better able to discuss the degree to which the nature of territorial control, political achivements, and battlefield assessments of victories might be practically discussed.

To suggest that Israel won or lost any of the territory it is now in control of and responsible → is just as absurd as questioning the "win" • "loss" statistics as if it were a game. Anyone who (like myself) has been to Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Yemen knows better then to treat it as a game. There is no real rule book.

If you apply deeper meaning into the what our friend "toddsterpatriot" said, there is something about it that rings true. After the UN Charter (1945) became effective the monitoing of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine fell under the responsibility of International Trusteeship System; less - of course, that which was earmarked the Jewish State and the Arab State.

The Arab League States (in particular Egypt and Jordan) took control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and Jersualem. The first established a Military Governship and the second Annex the territory by extending Sovereignty. Was the territory "won" or "lost"? (RHETORICAL) NO... You can see that the duration of control was temporary, not all that long. By 1988, the Irsaelis had extended - what was termed → "effective control." And while we may argue about what the meaning is for these terms, the one "fact" is that until 2006, the Arab Palestinians had no real control over the political agency of control for became segmented.

In this little description you can see why the terms "win" or "loss" are not really descriptive. An "occupation" is defined by Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR). It is very clear and uncomplicated.

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.​

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."​

(QUESTIONS)

When an Army extends over more territory than what they started with, what is that called?
When a Political Entity is offered more territory during the peace before a conflict → than it controls at the end of the conflict, what is that called?

(Ω)

The "Tinmore" question is very symplistic, too simplistic to answer.

.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Outcomes
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The term "win" or "lose" in the regards to combat gains or losses is rather an obsolete line of thought and termonology. It is an unsophisticate and crude (over symplistic) way of stating the nature of territorial control, political achivements, and battle engagements.

What did Israel win and from whom?

More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.

(COMMENT)

When you talk about accomplishments at the stratigic advvantages of a region (militarily economically, diplomatically, territrorially, etc), you are better able to discuss the degree to which the nature of territorial control, political achivements, and battlefield assessments of victories might be practically discussed.

To suggest that Israel won or lost any of the territory it is now in control of and responsible → is just as absurd as questioning the "win" • "loss" statistics as if it were a game. Anyone who (like myself) has been to Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Yemen knows better then to treat it as a game. There is no real rule book.

If you apply deeper meaning into the what our friend "toddsterpatriot" said, there is something about it that rings true. After the UN Charter (1945) became effective the monitoing of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine fell under the responsibility of International Trusteeship System; less - of course, that which was earmarked the Jewish State and the Arab State.

The Arab League States (in particular Egypt and Jordan) took control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and Jersualem. The first established a Military Governship and the second Annex the territory by extending Sovereignty. Was the territory "won" or "lost"? (RHETORICAL) NO... You can see that the duration of control was temporary, not all that long. By 1988, the Irsaelis had extended - what was termed → "effective control." And while we may argue about what the meaning is for these terms, the one "fact" is that until 2006, the Arab Palestinians had no real control over the political agency of control for became segmented.

In this little description you can see why the terms "win" or "loss" are not really descriptive. An "occupation" is defined by Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR). It is very clear and uncomplicated.

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.​

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."​

(QUESTIONS)

When an Army extends over more territory than what they started with, what is that called?
When a Political Entity is offered more territory during the peace before a conflict → than it controls at the end of the conflict, what is that called?

(Ω)

The "Tinmore" question is very symplistic, too simplistic to answer.

.

Most Respectfully,
R

At the risk of hurting P F. Tinmore's feelings, what is it called when armies cross a frontier with the stated goal of destroying a nascent State and fail at that stated goal?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What did they win and who did they win it from?

Already told you.

More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.

And they kicked a bunch of Arab ass.

 

[Rigby5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War

Where does it say that Israel won that war?

In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..

let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?

This article needs additional citations for verification.

Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??

How about this:

“Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”

Why the Arabs were defeated

Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.

www.aljazeera.com

This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.

From the same article :


The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......

The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......

What did Egypt lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Lebanon lose?
What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?

They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
Nice duck BTW

Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?

They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.

That wasn't the question.

You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not. I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !

Holy obfuscation, Batman.

Yet another duck by Tinmore. What’s the record for ducks by one poster in one thread? It must be Tinmore.
Whenever he loses an argument, he tries to retreat by accusing the other poster is ducking .
I’m still waiting for just one link to contradict what I posted Tinmore . Just one..

No, you just are trying to move away from my questions.

I have answered everything you have asked me and provided several links. You have provided NOTHING . Just ducking and dancing. Now you are accusing me of exactly what you are doing , trying to retreat when you know you lost ..

What did Egypt lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Lebanon lose?
What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?

What did Egypt lose?

They got their ass kicked.

What did Syria lose?

They got their ass kicked.

What did Lebanon lose?

They got their ass kicked.

What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?

They got their ass kicked.

How is that relevant?
Clearly Israel had the latest US weapons, while the Arab states had old surplus that was decades obsolete.

 

[Rigby5]

What did Israel win and from whom?

More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.

Israel had a war with nobody and did not win.

You don't make any sense.

Israel had a war with nobody

They didn't fight Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq?

and did not win.

Only if you call kicking Arab ass and winning more territory "not winning"......DURR

You run with that, Sparky.

No, not a single Arab nation ever committed more than a symbolic force against Israeli aggression, because it was not that important to them, and the US paid them to only do a minor, symbolic resistance.
And Iraq has as yet never ever been involved in any conflict with Israel.

Stealing more territory illegally by armed conflict, is totally and completely a war crime.
Has been since 1906 when the Geneva Conventions were started.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How is that relevant?
Clearly Israel had the latest US weapons

In 1948? Are you drunk again?

 

[Rigby5]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Outcomes
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The term "win" or "lose" in the regards to combat gains or losses is rather an obsolete line of thought and termonology. It is an unsophisticate and crude (over symplistic) way of stating the nature of territorial control, political achivements, and battle engagements.

What did Israel win and from whom?

More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.

(COMMENT)

When you talk about accomplishments at the stratigic advvantages of a region (militarily economically, diplomatically, territrorially, etc), you are better able to discuss the degree to which the nature of territorial control, political achivements, and battlefield assessments of victories might be practically discussed.

To suggest that Israel won or lost any of the territory it is now in control of and responsible → is just as absurd as questioning the "win" • "loss" statistics as if it were a game. Anyone who (like myself) has been to Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Yemen knows better then to treat it as a game. There is no real rule book.

If you apply deeper meaning into the what our friend "toddsterpatriot" said, there is something about it that rings true. After the UN Charter (1945) became effective the monitoing of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine fell under the responsibility of International Trusteeship System; less - of course, that which was earmarked the Jewish State and the Arab State.

The Arab League States (in particular Egypt and Jordan) took control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and Jersualem. The first established a Military Governship and the second Annex the territory by extending Sovereignty. Was the territory "won" or "lost"? (RHETORICAL) NO... You can see that the duration of control was temporary, not all that long. By 1988, the Irsaelis had extended - what was termed → "effective control." And while we may argue about what the meaning is for these terms, the one "fact" is that until 2006, the Arab Palestinians had no real control over the political agency of control for became segmented.

In this little description you can see why the terms "win" or "loss" are not really descriptive. An "occupation" is defined by Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR). It is very clear and uncomplicated.

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.​

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."​

(QUESTIONS)

When an Army extends over more territory than what they started with, what is that called?
When a Political Entity is offered more territory during the peace before a conflict → than it controls at the end of the conflict, what is that called?

(Ω)

The "Tinmore" question is very symplistic, too simplistic to answer.

.

Most Respectfully,
R

Except what you are forgetting is that the legal documents that created Palestine and its borders were the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres, and was contractually binding due to the promises the Allies made in order to get the Arab to help beat the Ottoman Empire in WWI.
When an Army extends over more territory than it started with, that depends on the peace negotiations.
If the loser start it, then the winner can administer the occupied land until a new government can be created.
But it can't legally annex any of the occupied territory.

If you go back to WWII you will see that land was not taken by the winners.
That is because it would be illegal to do so.
Land was taken in WWI, but now everyone recognized that as a crime.
So then there is no legal way by which Israel can ever claim Jerusalem or any part of the West Bank.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What did Israel win and from whom?

More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.

Israel had a war with nobody and did not win.

You don't make any sense.

Israel had a war with nobody

They didn't fight Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq?

and did not win.

Only if you call kicking Arab ass and winning more territory "not winning"......DURR

You run with that, Sparky.

No, not a single Arab nation ever committed more than a symbolic force against Israeli aggression, because it was not that important to them, and the US paid them to only do a minor, symbolic resistance.
And Iraq has as yet never ever been involved in any conflict with Israel.

Stealing more territory illegally by armed conflict, is totally and completely a war crime.
Has been since 1906 when the Geneva Conventions were started.

No, not a single Arab nation ever committed more than a symbolic force

How many symbolic troops did each loser...err...Arab nation commit? Link?

Stealing more territory illegally by armed conflict, is totally and completely a war crime.

Is that why Germany is as large today as it was in 1914?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you go back to WWII you will see that land was not taken by the winners.

Dude!

Just because weed is legal doesn't mean you should try to smoke all of it.......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So then there is no legal way by which Israel can ever claim Jerusalem or any part of the West Bank.

Who did they take it from?

 

[Rigby5]

How is that relevant?
Clearly Israel had the latest US weapons

In 1948? Are you drunk again?

YES in 1948.
The US sent about 20 B-17 bombers, which were only a few years old, flown from Florida to Palestine.
About 50 p-51 Mustangs, about the best fighter in the world at the time, were sent in crates.
And after being re-gunned in Czechoslovakia, the M-4 Sherman tanks were also about the best in the world.
All the latest WWII weapons just recently use by the US armed forces.
Also artillery, machineguns, rifles, pistols, etc.
In comparison, the Arabs had more like WWI relics because the British and French had blocked them from getting weapons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Outcomes
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The term "win" or "lose" in the regards to combat gains or losses is rather an obsolete line of thought and termonology. It is an unsophisticate and crude (over symplistic) way of stating the nature of territorial control, political achivements, and battle engagements.

What did Israel win and from whom?

More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.

(COMMENT)

When you talk about accomplishments at the stratigic advvantages of a region (militarily economically, diplomatically, territrorially, etc), you are better able to discuss the degree to which the nature of territorial control, political achivements, and battlefield assessments of victories might be practically discussed.

To suggest that Israel won or lost any of the territory it is now in control of and responsible → is just as absurd as questioning the "win" • "loss" statistics as if it were a game. Anyone who (like myself) has been to Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Yemen knows better then to treat it as a game. There is no real rule book.

If you apply deeper meaning into the what our friend "toddsterpatriot" said, there is something about it that rings true. After the UN Charter (1945) became effective the monitoing of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine fell under the responsibility of International Trusteeship System; less - of course, that which was earmarked the Jewish State and the Arab State.

The Arab League States (in particular Egypt and Jordan) took control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and Jersualem. The first established a Military Governship and the second Annex the territory by extending Sovereignty. Was the territory "won" or "lost"? (RHETORICAL) NO... You can see that the duration of control was temporary, not all that long. By 1988, the Irsaelis had extended - what was termed → "effective control." And while we may argue about what the meaning is for these terms, the one "fact" is that until 2006, the Arab Palestinians had no real control over the political agency of control for became segmented.

In this little description you can see why the terms "win" or "loss" are not really descriptive. An "occupation" is defined by Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR). It is very clear and uncomplicated.

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.​

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."​

(QUESTIONS)

When an Army extends over more territory than what they started with, what is that called?
When a Political Entity is offered more territory during the peace before a conflict → than it controls at the end of the conflict, what is that called?

(Ω)

The "Tinmore" question is very symplistic, too simplistic to answer.

.

Most Respectfully,
R

Except what you are forgetting is that the legal documents that created Palestine and its borders were the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres, and was contractually binding due to the promises the Allies made in order to get the Arab to help beat the Ottoman Empire in WWI.
When an Army extends over more territory than it started with, that depends on the peace negotiations.
If the loser start it, then the winner can administer the occupied land until a new government can be created.
But it can't legally annex any of the occupied territory.

If you go back to WWII you will see that land was not taken by the winners.
That is because it would be illegal to do so.
Land was taken in WWI, but now everyone recognized that as a crime.
So then there is no legal way by which Israel can ever claim Jerusalem or any part of the West Bank.

If you go back to WWII you will see that land was not taken by the winners.
That is because it would be illegal to do so.

Former eastern territories of Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Konisberg says you're wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

So then there is no legal way by which Israel can ever claim Jerusalem or any part of the West Bank.

Who did they take it from?

Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine, which had it borders set by the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres in 1920.

 

[Rigby5]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Outcomes
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The term "win" or "lose" in the regards to combat gains or losses is rather an obsolete line of thought and termonology. It is an unsophisticate and crude (over symplistic) way of stating the nature of territorial control, political achivements, and battle engagements.

What did Israel win and from whom?

More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.

(COMMENT)

When you talk about accomplishments at the stratigic advvantages of a region (militarily economically, diplomatically, territrorially, etc), you are better able to discuss the degree to which the nature of territorial control, political achivements, and battlefield assessments of victories might be practically discussed.

To suggest that Israel won or lost any of the territory it is now in control of and responsible → is just as absurd as questioning the "win" • "loss" statistics as if it were a game. Anyone who (like myself) has been to Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Yemen knows better then to treat it as a game. There is no real rule book.

If you apply deeper meaning into the what our friend "toddsterpatriot" said, there is something about it that rings true. After the UN Charter (1945) became effective the monitoing of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine fell under the responsibility of International Trusteeship System; less - of course, that which was earmarked the Jewish State and the Arab State.

The Arab League States (in particular Egypt and Jordan) took control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and Jersualem. The first established a Military Governship and the second Annex the territory by extending Sovereignty. Was the territory "won" or "lost"? (RHETORICAL) NO... You can see that the duration of control was temporary, not all that long. By 1988, the Irsaelis had extended - what was termed → "effective control." And while we may argue about what the meaning is for these terms, the one "fact" is that until 2006, the Arab Palestinians had no real control over the political agency of control for became segmented.

In this little description you can see why the terms "win" or "loss" are not really descriptive. An "occupation" is defined by Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR). It is very clear and uncomplicated.

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.​

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."​

(QUESTIONS)

When an Army extends over more territory than what they started with, what is that called?
When a Political Entity is offered more territory during the peace before a conflict → than it controls at the end of the conflict, what is that called?

(Ω)

The "Tinmore" question is very symplistic, too simplistic to answer.

.

Most Respectfully,
R

Except what you are forgetting is that the legal documents that created Palestine and its borders were the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres, and was contractually binding due to the promises the Allies made in order to get the Arab to help beat the Ottoman Empire in WWI.
When an Army extends over more territory than it started with, that depends on the peace negotiations.
If the loser start it, then the winner can administer the occupied land until a new government can be created.
But it can't legally annex any of the occupied territory.

If you go back to WWII you will see that land was not taken by the winners.
That is because it would be illegal to do so.
Land was taken in WWI, but now everyone recognized that as a crime.
So then there is no legal way by which Israel can ever claim Jerusalem or any part of the West Bank.

If you go back to WWII you will see that land was not taken by the winners.
That is because it would be illegal to do so.

View attachment 500169

Former eastern territories of Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Konisberg says you're wrong.

Wrong.
The creation of Poland was the recognition of the right of indigenous, and was not taken by any of the participants in WWII.
It would have been illegal if and of the Allies had taken it.
But none did.
Recognizing local sovereignty rights of the Poles is not invading, occupying, and then annexing by force.

 

[Rigby5]

What did they win and who did they win it from?

Already told you.

More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.

And they kicked a bunch of Arab ass.

The British Mandate for Palestine was not land owned by the British, but land owned by Palestine.
The British were just under mandate to help protect and administer for the Palestinian Arabs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How is that relevant?
Clearly Israel had the latest US weapons

In 1948? Are you drunk again?

YES in 1948.
The US sent about 20 B-17 bombers, which were only a few years old, flown from Florida to Palestine.
About 50 p-51 Mustangs, about the best fighter in the world at the time, were sent in crates.
And after being re-gunned in Czechoslovakia, the M-4 Sherman tanks were also about the best in the world.
All the latest WWII weapons just recently use by the US armed forces.
Also artillery, machineguns, rifles, pistols, etc.
In comparison, the Arabs had more like WWI relics because the British and French had blocked them from getting weapons.

The US sent about 20 B-17 bombers,

The US government? I don't believe you.

About 50 p-51 Mustangs, about the best fighter in the world at the time, were sent in crates.

50? Sent by the US government? I don't believe you.

In comparison, the Arabs had more like WWI relics

Plus, you said they only sent a couple of dozen troops.