Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
If they gave them 5 minuits to set up a functioning democracy. There is a slim chance something can be pulled from the Assad regime.
Israel can't allow that, they need all the boogeymen they can get to sustain their domestic right-wing political machine.
I'd say it's more than boogeymen. Israel knows everyone in the region hates it and will always hate it, so they want their neighbors as weak and chaotic as possible so they can be exploited by themselves and America. Israel would never be able to do the shit they do if their neighbors were anything but cynical dictatorships and failed states.
How would their neighbors stop Israel's genocidal behavior if they were functioning non-cynical non-dictatorships?
I mean, everything up to and including military action. The EU would probably get off its ass and do something about that trade treaty faster if there were real consequences for failing to do so, and a democratic Egypt or Syria could blockade Israel's Israel's Mediterranean ports. A democratic Egypt would also never enforce its side of the blockade. And of course there's always the possibility of war. So yeah, Israel's apartheid and genocide rely on its neighbors being weak or non-democratic, preferably both.
I mean, everything up to and including military action.
Man, how did that work out the last four times it was tried, against a much weaker Israel and with a much stronger pan-Arab alliance?
And, for that matter, since when are democratic states eager to enter into expensive and bloody wars over issues of foreign affairs?
You're looking at a hypermilitarized pariah state which views outside intervention as a threat to their continued existence. "We can pressure them, or, failing that, beat them in a war which we will dedicate ourselves to the hilt to!" is not a realistic analysis of the situation.
And a blockade is not only an act of war by international law, but would also certainly be viewed as one by Israel and responded to with extensive military force. How many ships and how many servicemen are a democratic Syria and Egypt willing to lose to get a worthless pinky-promise not to commit genocide (until Syria or Egypt's back is turned) from Israel?
Israel's desire for the surrounding states to remain ineffective and/or atrocious relates to their own internal politics more than a theoretical grand strategy of realpolitik that hasn't been relevant since the decline of seriously intended pan-Arabist threats to 'drive the Israelis into the sea'.
It is moral and correct to add to pressure on the Israelis. But it's not a real solution in and of itself, no more than pressuring North Korea or Iran is a real solution.
Man, how did that work out the last four times it was tried, against a much weaker Israel and with a much stronger pan-Arab alliance?
I'd contest both these notions. In 1948 you had states who were recently or currently under colonization, with armies built along outdated Ottoman lines, against Jewish militias that had superior numbers, not bad at all arms (fucking thanks for that, Poland and Czechoslovakia), British training and infrastructure and WWII experience. 1956 was the Suez crisis, which... uh... yeah. 1967 had many of the same issues as 1948, only with better weapons on both sides. And finally in 1973 Egypt actually had some success after modernizing its army, but then Sadat reared his ugly head and turned the war from a clear Egyptian victory into an inconclusive engagement. And yes, it was inconclusive; Israel whipped Syria but they have no claim to victory on the Egyptian front. Also remember that American full-throttle support was already a thing by that point.
My point being: The Arab states were and are held back by inflexible dictatorships and their colonial legacies; neither Egypt not Syria are at anything resembling their full potential. I mean when you ask yourself why a country like Egypt isn't a great power state on par with France or Britain, half the answer turns out to be colonialism, eye-wateringly bad dictatorial governance and corruption. This sounds like hyperbole but it's really not. I should also note that the IDF hasn't had a real engagement with a peer army in decades; I strongly doubt they're prepared to fight anything more than militias in terms of military doctrine.
And, for that matter, since when are democratic states eager to enter into expensive and bloody wars over issues of foreign affairs?
You could probably find an example in Roman history, but I'd say since Revolutionary France entered a generation-long war purely out of hatred for Austrians. And on that bit, I think you underestimate the sheer amount of hatred Arabs of all shapes and stripes have for Israel and their apartheid. In Egypt Sadat is still viewed as a war hero for his role in the Yom Kippur war, despite a pretty mixed leaning towards bad legacy otherwise.
How many ships and how many servicemen are a democratic Syria and Egypt willing to lose to get a worthless pinky-promise not to commit genocide (until Syria or Egypt's back is turned) from Israel?
I mean, you'd be looking at a full overhaul of the relationship between Palestine and Israel at that point, not a worthless pinky promise, but as for how many? Probably more than you'd expect. A weakened Israel would be good for its neighbors in all sorts of ways, so it's not like you're looking at purely ideological reasons, though that would still be the main motivator.
that hasn't been relevant since the decline of seriously intended pan-Arabist threats to 'drive the Israelis into the sea'.
It's doesn't seem relevant now because most Arab countries are dictatorships willing to cut deals an Arab Muslim electorate would never stomach. Success of a preventive measure doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
It is moral and correct to add to pressure on the Israelis. But it's not a real solution in and of itself, no more than pressuring North Korea or Iran is a real solution.
In Iran's case the pressure is almost all coming from the West, not from their immediate neighbors. The West's geopolitical clout is obviously immense, but there's still only so much you can do from half a world away. As for North Korea, its land border with China is really what's saving it here. Again, no such thing exists for Israel. This makes it extremely vulnerable to coercion tactics. I mean you've seen how much damage Yemen did with drones and Iranian missiles; replicate that on its Mediterranean coasts and the choice will be give in or starve to death.
In 1948 you had states who were recently or currently under colonization, with armies built along outdated Ottoman lines,
This is very far from true. The Egyptian Army was intensely modernized in both technology and organization by WW2, while the Syrian Army was kept weaker (especially in the command element) by the French, it was still fundamentally a modern and French-style army, not Ottoman, by '48.
and WWII experience
... what WW2 experience? Most Jews in Mandatory Palestine arrived before the outbreak of WW2; only a few volunteers in the paramilitaries would have had WW2 experience at the outbreak of the war. While some of the long-term Zionist settlers would have been in the multiethnic Middle-East Commando, there would have been Palestinians with that same experience on the opposite side in '48. I find it difficult to attribute WW2 experience to the Israeli success in 1948.
And finally in 1973 Egypt actually had some success after modernizing its army, but then Sadat reared his ugly head and turned the war from a clear Egyptian victory into an inconclusive engagement. And yes, it was inconclusive; Israel whipped Syria but they have no claim to victory on the Egyptian front.
... the idea that the Yom Kippur War was an Egyptian victory beyond the initial surprise attack is extremely curious. What is it that Sadat did that you think turned it into an inconclusive engagement?
Also remember that American full-throttle support was already a thing by that point.
In 1973? Not even close to true.
I mean when you ask yourself why a country like Egypt isn’t a great power state on par with France or Britain, half the answer turns out to be colonialism, eye-wateringly bad dictatorial governance and corruption. This sounds like hyperbole but it’s really not.
I mean, I don't disagree, but even if Egypt was operating at the same level of France, my conclusions would remain the same.
I should also note that the IDF hasn’t had a real engagement with a peer army in decades; I strongly doubt they’re prepared to fight anything more than militias in terms of military doctrine.
Short of having the armies of Syria and Egypt go through decades of reforms and rebuilding in a handful of months, how do you expect Egypt and Syria to spend years to create the necessary warfighting institutions that Israel simply fails to notice and react to?
but I’d say since Revolutionary France entered a generation-long war purely out of hatred for Austrians.
... Revolutionary France entered into a generation-long war out of the (correct) perception that the Austrians were seeking the total destruction of the French Republic. Not to mention that pre-industrial wars are a very different beast - and certainly pre-industrial wars wherein one party enjoys overwhelming success, which is far from guaranteed - and certainly pre-industrial wars in a polity that is not all that democratic to begin with, as the Directory, the Consulate, and the Empire were the prosecutors of the wars in the majority of that period.
And on that bit, I think you underestimate the sheer amount of hatred Arabs of all shapes and stripes have for Israel and their apartheid.
Hatred is one thing. The willingness to sacrifice your own sons and daughters is another - and the question arises, how many? Would a million be an acceptable price, like Russia has lost in Ukraine? Democracies are much more sensitive to such losses than strongman states; how much blood and how much of the nation's future would a democratic Egypt be willing to sacrifice against nuclear-armed Israel in an attempt to bring them to the negotiating table? It's taken as a matter of (correct) course that Poles fucking hate Russia, and with plenty of reason to do so - existential reasons, even - yet Poland has still declined to enter into the war in Ukraine. Democracies are not easy to goad into expensive and bloody wars.
America, which has three times the population of Egypt and is immensely wealthy, had record-breaking protests over the casualties inflicted in the Iraq War (and while I would love to say it was out of a sudden burst of principle, I have my fucking doubts) which resulted in the electoral thrashing of the responsible government. The numbers - some 4,500 American dead over the course of 5 years. About as many Americans were struck (though not killed) by lightning in that same period. How many Egyptian dead, do you think, will occur in a war with Israel?
And the cost - as Eisenhower once said, every missile is a child left hungry, every tank a theft of the nation's future - what financial cost will the Egyptian people accept as a sacrifice in a war against Israel with uncertain chances of victory? The US burned through literal trillions of dollars in the ~8 years of the Iraq War, and that was against a foe which was largely suppressed after the initial month of the invasion. Right now, Americans - and other Western democracies - are increasingly balking at the much lower cost of simply supplying Ukraine, for those same simple reasons stated - will an Egyptian democracy be 'pure' of these petty concerns, willing to accept a war with Israel on high-minded terms at any cost?
I mean, you’d be looking at a full overhaul of the relationship between Palestine and Israel at that point, not a worthless pinky promise,
From a blockade? Hardly. I would doubt Israeli society would capitulate its genocidal aims based on military coercion for anything less than a successfully prosecuted war - and especially since blockades are a notoriously difficult thing to enforce even with air superiority and naval supremacy, as seen by the aerially-challenged and navally bereft Ukraine having rendered the attempted blockade of Russia to a financial inconvenience rather than the hoped-for crushing blow.
but as for how many? Probably more than you’d expect.
Enough to wrest Israel out of what it would view as an existential crisis for the existence of the state and probably with full support of Israeli society?
It’s doesn’t seem relevant now because most Arab countries are dictatorships willing to cut deals an Arab Muslim electorate would never stomach. Success of a preventive measure doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant.
My point is that the goals and motivations of current Israeli policy are very different from what they were previously. Their primary interest now is not in preventing an invasion that seems unlikely to come or develop in any form in the near-to-medium future, but in providing 'red meat' for the increasing right-wing leaning of already-quite-right-wing Israeli society.
In Iran’s case the pressure is almost all coming from the West, not from their immediate neighbors. The West’s geopolitical clout is obviously immense, but there’s still only so much you can do from half a world away.
There is an immense amount of pressure on Iran from Arab states, as led in coalition by the Saudis. It has yet to topple Iran or change Iranian domestic policy, or give any hint that it is assisting meaningfully in such measures.
As for North Korea, its land border with China is really what’s saving it here. Again, no such thing exists for Israel. This makes it extremely vulnerable to coercion tactics.
What do you think the land border with China is saving North Korea from, exactly?
I mean you’ve seen how much damage Yemen did with drones and Iranian missiles
... Israel is estimated to have lost 4 billion over the past two years of the attempted Houthi blockade, which itself has been reliant on blatant violations of international law to achieve its effects, resulting in military pressure from even parties uninvolved in defense of the Israeli genocide. That's not chump change, but it's also not exactly the kind of numbers which pressure a state to change a core policy, and has come at the cost of engagement with a number of additional belligerents. Is that a viable plan for Egypt, do you think?
replicate that on its Mediterranean coasts and the choice will be give in or starve to death.
Again, see above - even naval supremacy and air superiority - both very questionable achievements - are far from capable of enforcing a blockade against a modernized military.
This is very far from true. The Egyptian Army was intensely modernized in both technology and organization by WW2, while the Syrian Army was kept weaker (especially in the command element) by the French, it was still fundamentally a modern and French-style army, not Ottoman, by '48.
Okay fair enough, I was thinking of the excessively rigid military doctrine, not the structure of the armies themselves. I also can't find anything about this dating back to the Ottomans, so I guess you can ignore that part.
... what WW2 experience?
This WWII experience. Also,
After the British army, the Haganah was considered the most powerful military force in the Middle East.
All in all, some 30,000 Palestinian Jews served in the British army during the war.
So yeah. Zionists had some pretty impressive forces by 1948.
What is it that Sadat did that you think turned it into an inconclusive engagement?
First he forced an attack on Israeli positions not covered by the Egyptian SAM umbrella, which was the lynchpin of the war (Egypt had no illusions about its ability to face off with the Israeli Air Force), losing Egyptian troops and giving Israel the momentum to launch a counteroffensive. Second, when during that counteroffensive Israel crossed the Suez Canal, he prevented his chief of staff from moving forces to the West Bank of the Canal to stop them. This would later lead to the disabling of Egypt's SAM umbrella and the complete derailing of the war effort. Egypt's goal in the war, was to take the East Bank of the Suez (which was protected by the SAM umbrella) and hold onto it for dear life to get Sinai in a negotiated peace, so while Sadat's meddling wasn't outright fatal it greatly strengthened the Israeli position. Had Israel's crossing been limited by prompt Egyptian intervention, the war would've been a clear Egyptian victory, which probably wouldn't have mattered much in the long term but it would've prevented Zionists from acting so fucking smug about the whole thing.
how do you expect Egypt and Syria to spend years to create the necessary warfighting institutions that Israel simply fails to notice and react to?
I mean, Syria does need to rebuild but Egypt already has those institutions; it just needs competent leadership able to fund and use them. If anything it's the Egyptian economy that needs drastic reform. While some new military ideas likely do need to be imported, the one thing the Egyptian regime has done is keep the military well-armed and trained. Edit: I'd also expect Israeli hubris to come in clutch here, but that's not exactly guaranteed.
Revolutionary France entered into a generation-long war out of the (correct) perception that the Austrians were seeking the total destruction of the French Republic.
Uh... no? The War of the First Coalition predates the Republic, and if anything the Holy Roman Emperor was supportive of the French Revolutionary project and was (very clumsily) trying to avoid war with the increasingly war-hungry French. It was French warmongers pushing for war with Austrians to weed out supposed foreign agents and conspirators and bring Revolutionary Purity™ to the country. The stuff about Austria wanting to destroy the Revolution was only true in the French's heads, at least at the start.
Hatred is one thing. The willingness to sacrifice your own sons and daughters is another - and the question arises, how many?
I mean, I have no idea, but do note that a whole generation of Arabs has been radicalized against Israel by the genocide in Gaza, so it wouldn't be too hard to push a Holy War of Patriotic Liberation on Behalf of our Palestinian Brothers™ (I'm only slightly exaggerating). Even in purely cynical terms, this sounds like a great way to distract from domestic issues. The question becomes whether the hypothetical government can get going and maintain enough of a war fever, which isn't guaranteed but I wouldn't bet against it either.
Democracies are not easy to goad into expensive and bloody wars.
It's not easy, but it does happen. See: WWII.
Their primary interest now is not in preventing an invasion that seems unlikely to come or develop in any form in the near-to-medium future, but in providing 'red meat' for the increasing right-wing leaning of already-quite-right-wing Israeli society
Fair enough.
Continued below.
Man, screw character limits. Also forgot to respond to some stuff so I'm doing that here.
What do you think the land border with China is saving North Korea from, exactly?
Economic starvation?
I would doubt Israeli society would capitulate its genocidal aims based on military coercion for anything less than a successfully prosecuted war
And how would they substitute trade with their foreign partners?
There is an immense amount of pressure on Iran from Arab states, as led in coalition by the Saudis.
Yes, but nothing from Central Asia, and Iran has a good amount of influence on Iraq, its only Arab neighbor. Iran can still sell its oil and drones, as long as it can circumvent sanctions.
In 1973? Not even close to true.
I mean, the intelligence sharing and airlift seem like full-throttle support to me. That's all American could've done in that situation short of boots on the ground.
and certainly pre-industrial wars in a polity that is not all that democratic to begin with,
The Directory et al led most of the war, but it was the Legislative Assembly that started it on the pretense that it would be quick, easy and glorious. It was none of those things, yet they continued anyway with no real peace movement in France.
America, which has three times the population of Egypt and is immensely wealthy,...
My understanding is that the domestic objection to Iraq was more about the pointlessness of the whole thing, because there really was no reason for America to be in Iraq. It's not like the American public soured on the noble mission of liberty espoused by Bush and crew; it was more a realization that there was no noble mission in the first place. Also my answer to all your questions in these two paragraphs is: I legitimately have no fucking idea; this would depend on how this hypothetical democratic Egypt came to be, among other things. For instance an Islamist-led revolution would be much more likely to lead to a war with Israel than one led by liberal moderates or—God forbid—a voluntary transfer of power by the regime. You're right regarding the impact of war, but people are also very good at ignoring the impact of war for one reason or another. The Blitz certainly didn't discourage Britain from fighting in WWII.
... Israel is estimated to have lost 4 billion over the past two years of the attempted Houthi blockade,
It's only getting off that lightly because it still has its Mediterranean ports. Take those away and they will be cut off from the outside world. Add in the Palestinian Intifada that would no doubt be inspired and supported by such action and you get a recipe for something to happen without too many non-Palestinian Arabs getting thrown into the meat grinder.
Is that a viable plan for Egypt, do you think?
Hopefully with less indiscriminate targeting, but yes. I'd also assume most countries would be less willing to attack Egypt so they don't get shut out of the Suez Canal.
Again, see above - even naval supremacy and air superiority - both very questionable achievements - are far from capable of enforcing a blockade against a modernized military.
It doesn't need to be a full blockade; turn that area into a warzone and nobody will want to ship there. Israel doesn't have the economic clout to get around that.
Also I want to note that while you seem to have focused on the war bit, there's also a full spectrum of non-military democratic Arab states could do to significantly pressure Israel, especially by targeting their all too critical relationship with Europe. A more economically robust Arab League could have another go at the original Arab League boycotts of Israel or threaten another oil embargo. I'm also not sure what knobs can be turned regarding the Suez Canal short of denying ships access, but there's probably something.
This WWII experience. Also,
As pointed out by that very article, those guard/auxiliary units were used for 'policing action' in the Levant - ie they did not see much, if any, serious combat.
After the British army, the Haganah was considered the most powerful military force in the Middle East.
Okay? What does that have to do with WW2 experience?
All in all, some 30,000 Palestinian Jews served in the British army during the war.
Again, most of them in guard units that did not see serious combat during WW2. The 12,000 Palestinians who served Britain in WW2 saw, proportionally to those who served, more combat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah
So yeah. Zionists had some pretty impressive forces by 1948.
Zionists having 'impressive forces' and having experience from WW2 in excess of Palestinian Arabs are two entirely different concepts.
First he forced an attack on Israeli positions not covered by the Egyptian SAM umbrella, which was the lynchpin of the war (Egypt had no illusions about its ability to face off with the Israeli Air Force), losing Egyptian troops and giving Israel the momentum to launch a counteroffensive. Second, when during that counteroffensive Israel crossed the Suez Canal, he prevented his chief of staff from moving forces to the West Bank of the Canal to stop them. This would later lead to the disabling of Egypt’s SAM umbrella and the complete derailing of the war effort. Egypt’s goal in the war, was to take the East Bank of the Suez (which was protected by the SAM umbrella) and hold onto it for dear life to get Sinai in a negotiated peace, so while Sadat’s meddling wasn’t outright fatal it greatly strengthened the Israeli position. Had Israel’s crossing been limited by prompt Egyptian intervention, the war would’ve been a clear Egyptian victory, which probably wouldn’t have mattered much in the long term but it would’ve prevented Zionists from acting so fucking smug about the whole thing.
I'm skeptical of the narrative of "Just one decision would have saved us" considering how seriously the Egyptian offensive was thrown back, but I also have to concede that the strategic situation of the Yom Kippur War is hardly something I'm read up on.
I mean, Syria does need to rebuild but Egypt already has those institutions; it just needs competent leadership able to fund and use them. While some new military ideas likely do need to be imported, the one thing the Egyptian regime has done is keep the military well-armed and trained.
Press X to doubt.
Uh… no? The War of the First Coalition predates the Republic,
Only nominally - the War of the First Coalition occurred because King Louis XVI attempted to flee France in the hopes of raising an army to restore his power. When the war broke out, France was technically a monarchy, but holding Louis XVI literally as prisoner, and executed him only a few months later. "Because they wanted to crush what was clearly in the process of formalizing a republican regime" is a distinction without a difference.
and if anything the Holy Roman Emperor was supportive of the French Revolutionary project
What the fuck???
The same Leopold II who made an open declaration the year before the war that military force would be employed if those uppity French so much as reduced King Louis XVI's powers??
It was French warmongers pushing for war with Austrians to weed out supposed foreign agents and conspirators and bring Revolutionary Purity™ to the country. The stuff about Austria wanting to destroy the Revolution was only true in the French’s heads, at least at the start.
This is an extremely bizarre take and not even vaguely connected to reality.
I mean, I have no idea, but do note that a whole generation of Arabs has been radicalized against Israel by the genocide in Gaza, so it wouldn’t be too hard to push a Holy War of Patriotic Liberation on Behalf of our Palestinian Brothers™ (I’m only slightly exaggerating).
Combined with the widespread antisemitism in Egyptian society, that sounds like a great recipe for a genocide upon any theoretical success.
It’s not easy, but it does happen. See: WWII.
... yes, when all major democratic counties who joined joined because of the direct threat of war by an aggressive non-democratic polity. The UK and France started it up because, as they saw it, Germany was clearly not going to stop after the last five annexations, and they were clearly on the chopping block next. The US only joined because we were directly attacked.
Economic starvation?
Is there a blockade that China is preventing with its land border?
And how would they substitute trade with their foreign partners?
See previous statements about blockades not being an easy thing like you think they are.
Yes, but nothing from Central Asia, and Iran has a good amount of influence on Iraq, its only Arab neighbor. Iran can still sell its oil and drones, as long as it can circumvent sanctions.
And how would pressure from neighboring countries prevent that? Their primary means of selling oil involves passing through the Strait of Hormuz; 'hostile power is in striking distance' is not really the factor you're portraying it as.
I mean, the intelligence sharing and airlift seem like full-throttle support to me. That’s all American could’ve done in that situation short of boots on the ground.
An option which was only raised because of Israeli nuclear threats if they didn't get assistance (which shouldn't have been conceded to, but that's another issue entirely), and which was limited to resupply of losses. The initial question of aid was roundly rejected in high-level US discussions, Kissinger (may he rest in piss) excepted.
The Directory et al led most of the war, but it was the Legislative Assembly that started it on the pretense that it would be quick, easy and glorious. It was none of those things, yet they continued anyway with no real peace movement in France.
It was started because of a clearly stated threat by Austria and Prussia, and attempts by nobility - including the king himself - to raise foreign forces for an invasion of France.
My understanding is that the domestic objection to Iraq was more about the pointlessness of the whole thing, because there really was no reason for America to be in Iraq. It’s not like the American public soured on the noble mission of liberty espoused by Bush and crew; it was more a realization that there was no noble mission in the first place.
Not really, no.
For instance an Islamist-led revolution would be much more likely to lead to a war with Israel than one led by liberal moderates
... I thought we were discussing a stable and democratic regime, not an Islamist pseudodemocracy. At that point, we might as well start discussing strongman states again.
The Blitz certainly didn’t discourage Britain from fighting in WWII.
The Blitz was also a direct attack on Britain during a war with existential implications for the continuation of the British government, not a fucking foreign adventure.
Hopefully with less indiscriminate targeting, but yes. I’d also assume most countries would be less willing to attack Egypt so they don’t get shut out of the Suez Canal.
By international agreements, if Egypt were to shut the Suez Canal to international trade for reasons of pressuring Israel or other countries supporting Israel, things would get very sour very fast.
It’s only getting off that lightly because it still has its Mediterranean ports. Take those away and they will be cut off from the outside world.
See previous statement about blockades not being all that easy.
Add in the Palestinian Intifada that would no doubt be inspired and supported by such action and you get a recipe for something to happen without too many non-Palestinian Arabs getting thrown into the meat grinder.
I'm sorry, are the Palestinians just not 'inspired' enough to fight for their lives at present?
A lot of this amounts to not much more than "If we BELIEVED enough it would be easy!"
It doesn’t need to be a full blockade; turn that area into a warzone and nobody will want to ship there.
Like how no one ships to Ukraine now?
Also I want to note that while you seem to have focused on the war bit, there’s also a full spectrum of non-military democratic Arab states could do to significantly pressure Israel, especially by targeting their all too critical relationship with Europe. A more economically robust Arab League could have another go at the original Arab League boycotts of Israel or threaten another oil embargo.
Considering that oil production was ramped up in Western countries so that the original embargo couldn't be repeated with the same devastating effects, and that oil is of decreasing relevance in the modern day, it would be a very long shot.
I’m also not sure what knobs can be turned regarding the Suez Canal short of denying ships access, but there’s probably something.
Not much. The Suez Canal is highly regulated by international agreements precisely to stop Egypt from using it as a weapon, like it tried to in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.