Apparently you do not understand plain English:
No, I do not agree with this statement. I especially disagree with it when the main supposed enemy of Israel is actually closer to being an alley!
I also disagree because it confuses LIMITED WAR with ABSOLUTE WAR. None of the Arab countries were willing to make more than a token effort, so their total resources were irrelevant. If you do not apply this sort of logic then you end up with idiocies such as the idea that Pancho Villa defeated the total strength of the USA, as did Hezbollah when they truck bombed the USMC out of Lebanon! So yes, I understand your posts - I just don't think they have a shred of sense in them. And, no, I'm not concentrating on tactics, it's rather that I'm horrified by your lack of appreciation for the basics of strategy (e.g. someone X can Y he is your enemy, but can really be your ally - this advanced manoeuvre is called "lying "!)
I don't think it's a problem with the language you use. It's the box you've locked yourself in. Seems to be a small box with a rather biased admission policy ands lots of mirrors. You're not going to let me in so I'll stop knocking and leave you alone in there.
Strategy is the art/science of using the ressources of your nation to achieve its goals. If it comes to war, you win by defeating your enemy our by destroying his will to fight. If you have achieved a position where your enemy lacks the will to fight you've won. It still counts as beating the odds if your opponent takes a dive. You just played outside of the box....