My proposed changes:
Egypt ordered United Nations peacekeeping forces to leave the Sinai, and in their place, Egyptian tanks and troops were concentrated on the border with Israel.
To:
Egypt ordered United Nations peacekeeping forces to leave the Sinai, and in their place, Egyptian forced were stationed there.
Because Egyptian forces were entrenched in the whole of Sinai. Egypt was preparing for a defensive war and there was no plan to invade Israel. There is already an article about the Six-day War, so every detail can't be written here too. But those facts that are written here, should reflect the truth.
Can you find a source that backs your claim up? The current wording gives the reader the impression that Nasser intended to invade Israel. That is not true:
Nasser took three steps that were intended to impress Arab public opinion rather than be a conscious prelude to war with Israel. The first step was to send a large number of troops into Sinai. The second was to ask for the removal of the UN Emergency Force from Sinai. The third and most fateful step, taken on 22 May, was to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. For Israel this constituted a casus belli. It canceled the main achievement of the Sinai Campaign." (Avi Shalim, The Iron Wall, p.237)
Palestine-info 08:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My proposed changes:
In accordance with international law, Israel considered the blockade of its port an act of war, and launched an attack on Egypt, especially the Egyptian Air Force.
To:
Israel considered this a valid pretext for going to war against Egypt.
Have anyone written that the Soviet Union's blockade of East Berlin would have allowed the United States, in accordance with international law, to launch a war? Can someone give me a quotation (and not an interpretation) of the "international law" that says that Israel was allowed to attack Egypt? No, there is no such law. Therefore the incorrect statement should be exchanged with the correct one.
My proposed changes:
Hostilities came to include Jordan (after Jordan reluctantly chose to dismiss Israeli appeals for neutrality and undertook shelling of Tel Aviv - in adherence with the its defence treaty with Egypt), Syria, and the Iraqi air force.
To:
In response, Egypt activated its defense treaty with Jordan, Syria and Iraq who reluctantly entered the war.
Israel made ONE appeal. And it was more like "stay out of this or suffer the consequences!" than an appeal. Israel knew about the defense treaty and knew Jordan was forced to attack, or its king would most likely have been beheaded. And to explain why Jordan had to enter the war and how it entered it despite Israel's threat requires to much text. Better not mentioning the threat at all. And Jordan shelled East Jerusalem not Tel Aviv, mortars doesn't reach all the way to Tel Aviv you see. No Jordanian troops entered Israeli territory either.
My proposed changes:
populated mostly by Palestinians with some Israeli population
To:
populated mostly by Palestinians with some Israeli settlers
"some Israeli settlers" is grammatically correct, "some Israeli population" is not.
My proposed changes:
Egypt ordered United Nations peacekeeping forces to leave the Sinai, and in their place, Egyptian tanks and troops were concentrated on the border with Israel.
To:
Egypt ordered United Nations peacekeeping forces to leave the Sinai, and in their place, Egyptian forced were stationed there.
Because Egyptian forces were entrenched in the whole of Sinai. Egypt was preparing for a defensive war and there was no plan to invade Israel. There is already an article about the Six-day War, so every detail can't be written here too. But those facts that are written here, should reflect the truth.
Can you find a source that backs your claim up? The current wording gives the reader the impression that Nasser intended to invade Israel. That is not true:
Nasser took three steps that were intended to impress Arab public opinion rather than be a conscious prelude to war with Israel. The first step was to send a large number of troops into Sinai. The second was to ask for the removal of the UN Emergency Force from Sinai. The third and most fateful step, taken on 22 May, was to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. For Israel this constituted a casus belli. It canceled the main achievement of the Sinai Campaign." (Avi Shalim, The Iron Wall, p.237)
Palestine-info 08:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My proposed changes:
In accordance with international law, Israel considered the blockade of its port an act of war, and launched an attack on Egypt, especially the Egyptian Air Force.
To:
Israel considered this a valid pretext for going to war against Egypt.
Have anyone written that the Soviet Union's blockade of East Berlin would have allowed the United States, in accordance with international law, to launch a war? Can someone give me a quotation (and not an interpretation) of the "international law" that says that Israel was allowed to attack Egypt? No, there is no such law. Therefore the incorrect statement should be exchanged with the correct one.
My proposed changes:
Hostilities came to include Jordan (after Jordan reluctantly chose to dismiss Israeli appeals for neutrality and undertook shelling of Tel Aviv - in adherence with the its defence treaty with Egypt), Syria, and the Iraqi air force.
To:
In response, Egypt activated its defense treaty with Jordan, Syria and Iraq who reluctantly entered the war.
Israel made ONE appeal. And it was more like "stay out of this or suffer the consequences!" than an appeal. Israel knew about the defense treaty and knew Jordan was forced to attack, or its king would most likely have been beheaded. And to explain why Jordan had to enter the war and how it entered it despite Israel's threat requires to much text. Better not mentioning the threat at all. And Jordan shelled East Jerusalem not Tel Aviv, mortars doesn't reach all the way to Tel Aviv you see. No Jordanian troops entered Israeli territory either.
My proposed changes:
populated mostly by Palestinians with some Israeli population
To:
populated mostly by Palestinians with some Israeli settlers
"some Israeli settlers" is grammatically correct, "some Israeli population" is not.