The Capture Of Megiddo And The Suez Canal

The Yom Kippur War happened in October 1973, which involved the Arabs and the Israelis, as well as two superpowers, the USA and the USSR. At the end of the war, the Israelis had won. However, the Israeli government and people were shocked by how the Arabs did. The Yom Kippur War has led to a number of effects on the Arab-Israeli relations, which can be classified as two aspects, short term and long term.

The superpowers, namely the USSR and US were in engaged in a war by proxy, which is very easy to identify if you analyze the conflicts in the Middle East from 1948 until, and including, the Yom Kippur War of 1978. The superpowers would employ tactics such as supplying their various ‘allies’ in the Middle East with weapons and finances which would afford them the ability to engage in the many conflicts that took place in that period such as the Suez Crisis, Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. All of this was done without either superpower’s putting their own men on the ground to fight, for fear of an all out war between each other. However much the superpowers might have fuelled the conflicts with supplying the Arabs and Israelis with weapons and finances, they were not the cause for the conflicts as they are much deeper rooted. Israel and the Arab states have always seen tension as per their culture and religious differences, and the growing nationalism of the Arab states and Zionism in Israel, which amounted to extreme actions such as the three major conflicts during the time period 1956-1978.

Since then, Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War the two most major conflicts between the Israelis and the Arabs. The former, in 1967, was a show of superior military force from Israel, launching preemptive strikes after battles were being fought between them and Arab forces. In 1973, Syrian and Egyptian armies launched a surprise attack while Israel was observing Yom Kippur. The war that followed lasted only 20 days, but cost at least 10 thousand lives. In 1978, The Egyptian President and Prime Minister of Israel met with Jimmy Carter in Camp David in order to attempt establishing peace in the Middle East. The resulting document, the Camp David Accords, states, “The agreed basis for a

The Israeli advance towards the canal is a fake to show the world that Egypt in danger of being overthrown by the Israelis. The British and French then dissimulate as peacekeepers, trying to diffuse then tension between Egypt and Israel. They offer Nasser an ultimatum: “Israel and Egypt are to cease fighting or the two Western powers will intervene”. On the 31st of October this ultimatum expires and France and Britain attack, bombing Alexandria and sending in thousands of troops. Russia then threatens Britain and France with Nuclear weapons. At this point it looks as though the world is on the brink of another World War.

     After experiencing the effects of a rising population and shortage of arable land, the Spartans moved through their mountainous western frontier in hope of seeking a new spacious land to live upon. Their decision to change their home grounds put the Spartans in great danger as they found themselves entering into the fertile plain of Messenia. Fearing that they may be overthrown by power by the Messenian resistance and the helot status, the

MP1 One of the Carl Von Clausewitz’s central issues that describes war’s dynamic is the concept of “culminating point of victory.” Clausewitz advocated the idea that an offensive should be focused on the defender’s collapse, otherwise there is a “culminating point”, a momentum where the attacker loses his advantage for strategic victory. As he mentioned, “every attack which does not lead to peace must necessarily end up as a defense.” Military history has been enriched by battles of commanders with an overestimating self-confidence and high spirit who failed to identify this momentum. As a result, they lost the tactical advantage and they were defeated. Classical example in the World War II

In 480 BC, when the Persian horde, estimated by some historians to range from 300,000 to 1.7 million soldiers, landed on the shores of Thermopylae, the Persian King Xerxes sent emissaries to the leaders of the Greek city-states demanding their surrender and patronage to the Persian Empire (Frye, 2006). Despite the massive threat that was encamped on the shores off the Gulf of Maliakos in small town known as Trachis, the Greeks refused. Sparta, known for their superior military might, were chosen by the Greek leaders to lead a coalition of Greek warriors to defend their homeland from the invading Persian army (Frye, 2006).

The purpose of this battle analysis is to discuss how Army Intelligence failed to give adequate size

Amidst the diversity of ideas and concepts that Herodotus develops throughout his History, the notion that highly different political structures do exist and may eventually clash is a prominent one. In accord with Herodotus’ manner of incidentally placing the essential cores of his arguments and observations in microcosmic episodes scattered across the body of his narrative, the exchange between Xerxes and Demaratus in passages 101-105 of Book 7 serves as a gateway into exploring and discussing the ways in which the Greeks and the Persians differ, both politically and socially. Through the contrast between the Greeks and the Persians that the conversation depicts, Herodotus advances his narrative-wide delineation of the disparity between the

Background: In the midst of the Cold War and the Arab-Israeli conflict, conflict arose over Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. This was of particular concern due to Nasser’s increased connection with the Soviet Union, through the Czech Arms agreement and the Aswan Dam. Following Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal, Great Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt. In facing this crisis, the U.S. had to consider Cold War politics with the Soviet Union, relations with Arab and Israeli nations, and relations with the invading powers

Through the manuscripts of Herodotus, an ancient historian who hailed from the mountainous lands of Greece, modern day historians have been granted the ability to piece together the multitude of events that supposedly transpired during the years 480 and 479 BC between the Persian empire and the city-states of the classical Greece (Herodotus). The second Persian invasion of Greece, which took place in the previously mentioned years, was a part of the many series of battles and encounters that made up the Greco-Persian Wars. This invasion in particular, however, probably saw one of the most distinguished battles in ancient European warfare befall. As a whole, the second Persian invasion of Greece consisted of several battles that transpired within a close proximity of one another chronologically. The war itself was fairly short-lived, even for its time, lasting only the course of approximately one year. The battles themselves took place in Thermopylae, Artemisium, Salamis, Platae, and Mycale (Setzer). The Persian invasion forces were led by King Xerxes I of Persia, the son of Darius I of Persia. Prior to the reign of Xerxes I, King Darius I had wanted to take control of ancient Greece. As such, he ordered two campaigns which made up the first Persian invasion of Greece. Much to his hindrance, however, Darius I breathed his last breath before he was presented with the opportunity to carry out a second invasion.

On October 6, 1973, on the eve of Yom Kippur (the most holy day in the Jewish religion) Egypt attacked Israel. Israel proceeded to defend itself and for the third time since World War II the small Jewish state triumphed against one who greatly outnumbered it. The defeat humiliated the Arab nation; it retaliated with its most powerful weapon, an oil boycott. Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) primarily aimed the oil embargo at the United States, for their decision to re-supply the Israeli military and gain advantage in the post-war peace negations. However OPEC members also protracted the embargo to other countries that supported Israel. These included the Netherlands, Portugal, and South Africa. The 1973 Oil Embargo acutely stained the U.S. economy, one that had grown increasingly dependent on foreign oil.

May 22, 1967: Egypt closes the Straits of Tiran to Israel, cutting off their supply route to Asia and supply of oil. By international law this is an act of war.

The physical and geopolitical obstacles involved in building a canal in a foreign nation are numerous and complex; however, a canal presents an excellent economic opportunity for imperialist nations. For this reason, a French canal was a political, economic, and imperialist idea that had historical roots back to the reign Louis XIV (Negrelli). Later Napoleon had a vision, reminiscent of Louis XIV, to overcome nature through French imperialist efforts, including a massive investment of both monetary and human capital to connect trade destinations.The isthmus between the Red and Mediterranean seas, the Isthmus of Suez was viewed as a opportune chunk of land to excavate for the purpose of a canal to cut the travel

This essay examines the evolution of the Athens strategy from the beginning to the end of The Peloponnesian War (431 to 404 BCE). The Strategy will be evaluated in the context of the relationship of ends, means, and ways by testing the suitability, acceptability, feasibility, and risk.