@snatch147at85 It's similar to the situation in 48. In the south, they were kicking out arabs form the villages during the war specifically as revenge for the tensions in the mid to late 30's and early 40's. Again, if there was never tension in the mid to late 1940's,the situation in Israel would be vastly different. You would already have a two state solution from the start. Israel being one and parts of the west bank and north being provinces in Syria.
@snatch147at85 They should have been smarter. That means NO blockade of Eilat and No proxy groups in the Golan. It was inevitable for israel to attack because of the shortage of water. But if they did the above 2 things I mentioned, Israel would have had a MUCH tougher time fighting the war because of political pressure. Sometimes, the smart way is the way to go. You think Israel didn't provoke them? Of course, but you have to be smarter.
@straightshooterable You are absolutely correct that Israel wanted to invade Syria. Why? Great question. Syria was throwing rocket shells near the Golan (not the Syrians, but proxy groups) during 1965 and increasingly during 1966. Wait.......what year comes after 1966? 1967. Wait what year was the war fought? 1967. Wait.....this can't be a coincidence. Relative importance of Eilat?
Also, as the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) Commander, Major General Idar Jit Rikhye, revealed, Nasser was not enforcing the blockade: "[The Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation."
You really must do some elementary research using accredited, documented impartial sources. If you do, you will discover you have no case whatsoever, that you are un/misinformed.
Also, as per the Statistical Abstract of Israel (1967), "the relative importance of Eilat to the total number of ships arriving at the four other principal Israeli ports (Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jaffa, and Ashdod) was 2.20%, 2.46%, 2.75%, and 2.91% for the years 1966, 1965, 1964, and 1963 respectively. The percentage of tonnage registered at Eilat to the tonnage registered at the other four ports was 1.90%, 2.48%, 1.71% and 1.55% for the same years respectively."
On May 22nd, in response to Israel`s repeated threats to invade Syria with whom Egypt shared a mutual defence pact, President Nasser announced that shipments of strategic goods by Israeli and non-Israeli flagged ships to Israel’s port of Eilat/Elath would be blockaded and denied passage through the Straits of Tiran. This was perfectly within Egypt's legal rights, i.e,. Egypt's territorial waters.
his voice sounds like john malkovich
JSDuncan2113 4 days ago
"New York is Afghanistan!" ~ Kevin Coval
generationsackcloth 1 week ago
Has this brother done any other poems, because this was brilliant!
heeheeheeheeheehee 3 weeks ago
@snatch147at85 It's similar to the situation in 48. In the south, they were kicking out arabs form the villages during the war specifically as revenge for the tensions in the mid to late 30's and early 40's. Again, if there was never tension in the mid to late 1940's,the situation in Israel would be vastly different. You would already have a two state solution from the start. Israel being one and parts of the west bank and north being provinces in Syria.
snatch147at85 3 weeks ago
@snatch147at85 They should have been smarter. That means NO blockade of Eilat and No proxy groups in the Golan. It was inevitable for israel to attack because of the shortage of water. But if they did the above 2 things I mentioned, Israel would have had a MUCH tougher time fighting the war because of political pressure. Sometimes, the smart way is the way to go. You think Israel didn't provoke them? Of course, but you have to be smarter.
snatch147at85 3 weeks ago
@snatch147at85 What does relative important, in terms of tonnage, have to do with finding reasons for a preemptive strike?
snatch147at85 3 weeks ago
@straightshooterable You are absolutely correct that Israel wanted to invade Syria. Why? Great question. Syria was throwing rocket shells near the Golan (not the Syrians, but proxy groups) during 1965 and increasingly during 1966. Wait.......what year comes after 1966? 1967. Wait what year was the war fought? 1967. Wait.....this can't be a coincidence. Relative importance of Eilat?
snatch147at85 3 weeks ago
@snatch147at85
No. 3
Also, as the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) Commander, Major General Idar Jit Rikhye, revealed, Nasser was not enforcing the blockade: "[The Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation."
You really must do some elementary research using accredited, documented impartial sources. If you do, you will discover you have no case whatsoever, that you are un/misinformed.
Enough said.
straightshooterable 3 weeks ago
@snatch147at85
2
Also, as per the Statistical Abstract of Israel (1967), "the relative importance of Eilat to the total number of ships arriving at the four other principal Israeli ports (Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jaffa, and Ashdod) was 2.20%, 2.46%, 2.75%, and 2.91% for the years 1966, 1965, 1964, and 1963 respectively. The percentage of tonnage registered at Eilat to the tonnage registered at the other four ports was 1.90%, 2.48%, 1.71% and 1.55% for the same years respectively."
straightshooterable 3 weeks ago
@snatch147at85
Nonsense.
Part 1.
On May 22nd, in response to Israel`s repeated threats to invade Syria with whom Egypt shared a mutual defence pact, President Nasser announced that shipments of strategic goods by Israeli and non-Israeli flagged ships to Israel’s port of Eilat/Elath would be blockaded and denied passage through the Straits of Tiran. This was perfectly within Egypt's legal rights, i.e,. Egypt's territorial waters.
straightshooterable 3 weeks ago