The Israeli "peace process" is over and the Palestinians are SOLEY to blame

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Zevico

Very true, che. But to use that as a defense is a bit off. The 1967 war is a textbook scenario of a pre-emptive strike.

It was pre-emptive and it wasn't pre-emptive. It was pre-emptive in that it was clear to everyone that the Egyptians were planning on attacking and the only reason they hadn't attacked was because the Soviets adviced them they'd get more sympathy if they rattled the Israelis cage until they responded. It wasn't pre-emptive in that the Arabs closed the gulf of Aquaba and declared they'd sink any ship which tried to reach Eliot. Eliot was/is Israel's main port for recieving oil shipments so that's damn near as close to a declaration of war as you can get.

[Az]

a) It's Eilat.
b) It's not so much a declaration of war, but a very legitimate reason to go to war.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
a) It's Eilat.
b) It's not so much a declaration of war, but a very legitimate reason to go to war.

Not, it's T. S. Eliot and a paramount reason for conflict.

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.

Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.

I do not think that they will sing to me.


T.S. Eliot (1888–1965). Prufrock and Other Observations. 1917.

[Az]

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
To say that someone is gullible isn't an insult.

First... you are making personal comments... and second, some might consider that an insult.

DISCUSS THE TOPIC... NOT THE POSTERS!

And I've deleted a few more spam posts... next time, I will just restrict the poster.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Edan
Outside of the acts of war (eg, blockading an international waterway), the evidence suggests that they were.

The Straights of Tiran are only "international waters" because Egypt was invaded in '56 and forced at gunpoint to recognize them as such, despite the fact that entrence to those waters lie entirely within Egypt's territory, thus making them not international waters. Egypt was entirely within its rights as a sovreign nation to close it's territorial waters to anyone it wants. They are no more international waters than is the Suez Canal.

The eveidence only suggests that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel if you refuse to look past the surface. This is always a stupid thing to do in international politics. Nasser had just lost a war in Yemen. Given the asswhooping Israel had handed Egypt 11 years earlier, Nasser had no expectation of being able to seriosly take on Israel.

Unless you believe Nasser was stupid, which is only possible if you look at the '67 war, and nothing else in his period of leadership, you'd have to believe he had gone temporarily mad, but moving his forces to the border, lining them up all pretty, and then sitting there for two weeks without being on high alert. Sneak attacks don't announce themselves.

Someone planning on invading another country does't tell the U.N. to move to the other side of the border, which is what Egypt did. They said that if Israel wanted to have the U.N. there, they could host them instead of the Egyptians. After all, Israel was the agressor against Egypt in '56, which should Egypt be the country that is occupied by the U.N. If the Israelis had accepted that, it would have put a major crimp in the plans to then invade.

No, Egypt was making a declaration to Israel that it intended to fullfil it's allaince with Syria should Israel invade Syria, which it was planning to do.

And, of course, in the case of Jordan, they did attack.

Jordan, Syria, and Egypt had a defensive alliance. Just as our allies in NATO considered the 9/11 attacks to be an attack upon them, the Israeli invasion of Egypt was an attack upon Jordan. Jordan was defending it's ally, as it was required to do.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Az
a) It's Eilat.
b) It's not so much a declaration of war, but a very legitimate reason to go to war.

Yup. Especially since not attacking would have meant economic suicide to not attack and have had to deal with a closed Eilat and the cost of keeping reserves ready to defend itself in the event of an attack.

[DerSchwarzfalke]

*cough* Geography point. The Straits of Tiran lie between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, with Egypt controlling a small island between the two landmasses in addition. Such sticky waterways in which the twelve mile rule for international waters do not apply tend to be international waterways.

It is different from, say, the Suez Canal, an artificial body for one and Egyptian top to bottom throughout. Egypt can legitimately say "No Israelis Club" and cause no problems. When Egypt tries to close the Straits of Tiran, however, against Israeli shipping, that is the declaration of a blockade -- long recognized under international law as a de facto declaration of war.

[chequita guevara]

Then Israel could have gone through Saudi Arabian waters. Economic hardship isn't a legit reason to go to war. Otherwise Cuba would have every right to attack the United States. Up until 1956, the Straights of Tiran were not recognized as international waters.

[DeathByTheSword]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Then Israel could have gone through Saudi Arabian waters. Economic hardship isn't a legit reason to go to war. Otherwise Cuba would have every right to attack the United States. Up until 1956, the Straights of Tiran were not recognized as international waters.

the cuba argument isnt the same because the american league (or what ever the name is) voted for the blockade with only cuba being absent...it was a more 'legit' blockade

[DerSchwarzfalke]

No, because Egypt from Shaikh al-Arab could have easily bombarded any Israeli ship passing through the narrows. I do not know the exact dimensions of the straits -- twelve kilometers, I think, but please correct me -- but the size is small enough that artillery bombardment could have hit any Israeli ship going through.

You miss the point anyway. There is not "Saudi Arabian waters" there, because it is an international waterway. Egypt cannot legitimately "close" it without declaring a blockade and declaring war. A blockade isn't "economic hardship;" it is a blockade. A blockade being a recognized act of war.

[Tassadar500]

Wow. I've seriously over-estimated the ability of 'Poly members to discuss the Israel-Palestinian conflict without breaking the rules of the site.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke
You miss the point anyway.

No, I don't miss the point. Egypt, at gun point, was forced to open its territorial waters to Israel and call them international waters. It was not international waters until 1956. It's only international waters because Egypt was invaded and defeated by Israel, Britain, and France.

Once you can undertand that relatively simple fact, then you can say, hmmm, Egypt was entirely within its rights to close its waters to Israel. Saudi waters were also closed to Israel, meaning, Israel was gonna have to go around Africa for its oil.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
the cuba argument isnt the same because the american league (or what ever the name is) voted for the blockade with only cuba being absent...it was a more 'legit' blockade

The OAS has no legal authority to impose economic boycotts or blockades. Only the UNSC has such authority.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's generally recognized as a matter of international law that any land taken by conquest, whether by an aggressor or no, is not the legitimate property of the conqueror.

Do you know how many countries in the world today, would have to concede a good part of their territory then?

For starters I guess this means United States has to concede its southwestern region back to Mexico.

And the United Kingdom will have to concede Gribaltar back to Spain and the Falkland Islands back to Argentina.