- 12 Dec 2017 14:49
#14870285
There's no effective alternative, in Syria or Iraq. With unbelievable naivete, the neocons thought they knew better than Saddam about how to govern Iraq. The truth is, either there is a strong central authority, or there is national disintegration, giving rise to groups like ISIS.
I don't know if the Egyptians had actually localized the means to close the strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping. In any event, it was a minor problem considering that Israel's main ports are on the Mediterranean.
This was known from the start. Read the books by Pollack, Dupuy, O'Ballance etc. Egypt had only two infantry divisions, behind defensive works, on the frontier. The bulk of the armor was much farther back.
There was never the slightest possibility Israel would be eliminated. Before the war the US Joint Chiefs concluded Israel would win no matter what happened.
Right. There was no real danger; the Israelis just seized upon Nasser's move--for political reasons--to destroy arab forces and grab territory.
Nearly four decades of peace following the Egypt-Israel treaty is indisputable proof that the land for peace formula works. But Israel won't apply it to the Golan and west bank.
Ter wrote:Whatever the case may be, one tyrant or another, Syria has been ruled by dictators,
There's no effective alternative, in Syria or Iraq. With unbelievable naivete, the neocons thought they knew better than Saddam about how to govern Iraq. The truth is, either there is a strong central authority, or there is national disintegration, giving rise to groups like ISIS.
and Egypt did close an international water way, which is equivalent to an act of war.
I don't know if the Egyptians had actually localized the means to close the strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping. In any event, it was a minor problem considering that Israel's main ports are on the Mediterranean.
It is very convenient to now say that all those Arab troop movements (together with the rhetoric and the rest) were "defensive".
This was known from the start. Read the books by Pollack, Dupuy, O'Ballance etc. Egypt had only two infantry divisions, behind defensive works, on the frontier. The bulk of the armor was much farther back.
Israel was so small they could not wait to see what would happen and struck first.
There was never the slightest possibility Israel would be eliminated. Before the war the US Joint Chiefs concluded Israel would win no matter what happened.
And they cleaned out the Arab armies and took the Sinai, the West Bank, the Golan and Jerusalem.
Right. There was no real danger; the Israelis just seized upon Nasser's move--for political reasons--to destroy arab forces and grab territory.
It does not look as if the Arabs will be peaceful even after getting all of those territories back because even before the 1967 war, the Arab neighbours could not accept even one inch of Israel as a Jewish State.
Nearly four decades of peace following the Egypt-Israel treaty is indisputable proof that the land for peace formula works. But Israel won't apply it to the Golan and west bank.