The entire point of my post to PETER SM was that SYRIA did not attack in 1972 in order to drive down onto the plains and burn Tel Aviv to the ground. My point is that Syria had NO INTENTION of doing that, and no objective other than taking on the IDF occupation army and sweeping it aside. And you CONTINUE to come back with arguments that nothing but reinforce that central thesis: Syria had NO MEANS of sweeping down into Israeli territory, they KNEW they had no hope of doing so, and so they NEVER EVEN TRIED. They got rolled up the next day? Or they fled the next day? Or they received an alarming report from the USSR that Israel was readying nukes for the next day? (that last was reported at the time) In legal terms it's called a "distinction without a difference", coz it doesn't affect my central thesis; Syria DID NOT attack Israel itself. It ONLY attacked an army of occupation encamped on its territory, and that was ALL it was attempting.
U.S. to deliver 8 advanced F-16s to Egypt on July 30-31, U.S. embassy in Cairo says (Reuters)
from the article: Israel sends conciliatory messages to Damascus