Johnson, on paper Israel couldnt beat Russia and on paper Israel couldnt defeat the entire Arab and Muslim world. The simple truth is it is all in Hashem's hands obviously we are forbidden from depending on miracles and must do everything physically possible to defeat our enemies but the victory is only in the hands of Hashem.
I agree with you 100%. This is why I said above that, and expressed before, for any Israeli victory over a bear like Russia would have to come as a massive multi-facetted surprise nuclear attack with HaShem's finger on the red button. Which, I personally, am in agreement. The question then is the response of Russia's allies; North Korea, China, Pakistan etc. 
Following is the opinion of my friend Larry who faught in Israel's wars so I do believe his input would be most applicable, appreciated and respected. Enjoy:
The question of poor ol' Levi Eshkol and LBJ? First Israel did not sweep all armies at the same time really they fought a two front war with two enemies at first, as I recall.
President Nasser, implemented a blockade of the Straits of Tiran, on May 24th, 1967. This waterway's international character, was recognized by the Egyptians in diplomatic notes, as far back as Jan. 1950. According to the UN Charter, the suspension of innocent passage by blockade, is an act of belligerency. From May 24th to the 27th , Israel was urged by the Western World to use restraint, president Johnson called it an "
illegal act potentially damaging to peace."
On May 27th, Nasser boldly announced to the world. "
The meaning of Sharm el Sheikh is a confrontation with Israel, adopting this measure obligates us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel." Later on the same day he stated to Western journalists that this was not over a border adjustment but he stated "
Our objective will be the destruction of Israel."
Israel dearly pressed, owing to the fact that 90% of her oil supplies (the Shah's Iran, and Indonesia) came through those straits, still tried through diplomatic channels to get Nasser to dismantle the blockade. Further she appealed to the maritime powers, who had guaranteed innocent passage at the
U.N. Law of the Sea convention of 1957, and was met with silence or secret and non committal commiseration.
On May 30th, Nasser boasted publicly . . . ."
the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, are poised at the borders of Israel . . . . the critical hour has arrived. . . " On May 31st, Iraqi, Sudanese, Algerian, and even Kuwaiti forces were rushing in contingents to take up positions.
Up till the evening of June 4th, Israel tried through diplomatic measures to get innocent passage restored, despite the tightening noose of Nasser's Pan Arabian destiny.
Long after, when all those who have investigated the record of proven events, including the present reputed international jurists, will define. The closure of the international waterway was the casus belli of the June 1967 campaign. The Israeli actions after were a defensive response to a premeditated strangulation.
A textbook example of an evolving Monash-Fuller plan of battle (
Plan 1919, or the rolling front, also known as Blitzkrieg) are admirably demonstrated by the Gavish, Tal, Yoffe, and Sharon, 's operational dispatches recorded in Sinai, June 5th to 8th 1967. The brilliance of both conception and execution of the plan almost defies belief of the most experienced of NATO officers.
We know now, with a 20/20 hindsight, that as of May 31st 1967, there was an Egyptian force of approximately 100,000 regulars and 1000 tanks in Sinai ALONE. Their operational structure as 7 divisions and 1 brigade. These were: 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, and 20th Infantry divisions. The 4th Armoured division, the Shazli force (a full Armoured division + 1 motorized infantry brigade, under a charismatic independent commander Gen. Shazli), and an Armoured brigade with 2 battalions of artillery. These EIGHT semi-independent armed units were deployed in a strong defensive position which also provided an excellent springboard for offensive action.
This was only in the Sinai peninsula, the other Arab armies, especially in Syria and Jordan were being deployed by the Egyptian general staff at the same time. It was at this military machine that Israel struck on the morning of June 5th. Despite efforts to get King Hussein to keep Jordan out of that war, at 11 am on June 5, 1967 Jordanian artillery located in Ramallah started shelling downtown Tel Aviv and Ramat Gan, while other Jordanian units started an assault on Jerusalem. Syria was suppose to join the fray but did not and instead bellicosely harassed the Galilee with artillery fire keeping safe in their bunkers on the heights. So Israel fought a hard and painful two front war. Vets I knew after told me that the Jordanians were tough and some places literally changed hands three times. The Egyptians were delusional and poorly led and many ran when they hit any fighting (quite different in 1973). But there is no such thing as "
essentially no casualties " it is true that the nation was lucky but over 264 Israeli lads were killed and some 1250 were wounded, some are still maimed or blinded from those June 67 days. Over 60 % were lost on the Jordanian front. That means by the way some 1500 families were ruptured and traumatized. To put that in a Canadian context at the time it would mean over 16,000 Canadian households would have felt the consequences of such a "
victorious" war. But essentially Israel faced "ayin brere" (no choice) as the above demonstrates. On day four the Zahal had effectively demolished the Egyptians and Jordanians and then we have since discovered the men of the Zahal ignored the politicians in the Kenneset and took action on the real culprits who had instigated that war Syria. It was really over by the evening of the fifth day and day six was mopping up.
It was those indefensible borders of tiny Israel on June 4th 1967 that made the Arabs so confident of victory that they sang out their intolerant intent to the whole world. In recognition of the truth the
UN adopted resolution 242 with the careful wording that Israel not be forced to return to borders that encouraged aggression. Therefore the wording was "
from territories occupied in the recent conflict" it does
not call for "
all territories" and it further says that there must be termination of belligerency and a recognition of sovereignty before any said territories are relinquished.
Its not true that the Israelis were with inferior training or with inferior equipment they understood the weapon systems they used and its maximum potential and even more important knew how to fix it and make it function to it's limitations. The Arabs had no such option except the Jordanians. But the Jordanians had a limitation, they had specialists who could repair a tank in the field but unlike the Israelis whom every crew could repair and improvise their own equipment the Jordanians had shop pools who moved with their armour or guns, the Egyptians were pathetic, over 60% of their soldiers could not read, if equipment broke it had to be towed to shop pools run by German and Russian specialists who were not allowed to go in the van of the army. The Syrians were even worse off.
Iraq had no common border with Israel, though it sent half baked volunteers Israeli politicians could not have sold either the Zahal or the public on such a venture to a country 300 miles from home. Also the logistics of supplying a force on such an expedition, the distances of it's
supply lines were beyond the nation's means at that time. Saudi Arabia's size and distances were even more daunting than Iraq besides that would have outraged the British and the Americans, Israel would have been seen as gone crazy. As for Iran and Turkey?? sorry you go to war with dangerous
active enemies that are effectively doing disabling deeds,
not with potential enemies or blustering and ineffective enemies. Indeed at the time of 1967 both Turkey and Iran were on friendly terms with Israel, Turkey is still on good terms with Israel and maintains both diplomatic, economic and military cooperation. In 1967 Turkey provided both material stuffs and weapons and Iran sold Israel more than 80% of its oil.
As for Russia, Israel understood Russia better than most, if you don't attack Russia they are not likely to attack you but if you do attack Russia they will hunt you down and destroy you. Besides the logistics and supply lines are beyond the capabilities of all NATO let alone Israel. No Israel even when they were able to do it as an air attack in June of 1982 knew better than to take on the Russian bear, in 1967 it would have been plain stupid, even today it would be insanity.
Shavouah tov,
Larry
Topic: What-if 1967... (Read 7979 times)