The arabs didn't try to wipe out Israel in '67. If the '67 war was considered to be a truly legitimate war that Israel won and therefore rightfully to the victor should go the spoils....why is it that the world believes that a two-state solution must be based on '67 borders with agreed upon land swaps? The truth is, it wasn't a legitimate war. Nasser was given faulty intelligence about Israel possibly preparing for an incursion into Syria by Egypt's then greatest ally, Russia. Because Syria and Egypt had a defense pact....Nasser mobilized his forces to come help Syria. This included a maritime blockade on Israel. Also, during this time...the U.S. and Russia were fighting a cold war for world influence. It would make sense that we would look upon Israel's actions as great during the time of '67 war because anything that helps beat back the great Red threat in any manner is good for the U.S....after all....we were embroiled in Vietnam at the time fighting the "good fight" against Communism. Well...hindsight is 20/20 and today the truth is known about the '67 war. It is not "genius" that caused Israel to win the '67 war. Preemptively striking and destroying the only legitimate air force in the region is not brilliant...it's akin to a sucker punch. Harry Houdini claimed to be able to withstand the force of any blow that a man could subject his abdomen to...yet he was killed by a man who did such a thing and not because he wasn't capable of doing it...but because he was caught off guard, wasn't ready, and was sucker-punched. Israel "sucker-punched" Egypt and grabbed a whole swath of land. It was not legitimately gained, so it doesn't take a scholar to see why the world considers the '67 borders that starting point of any two-state solution. Thank you and goodnight!
U.S. says working on initiative to de-escalate Syria fighting, with focus on Aleppo (Reuters)