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

[Vesayen]

If an embargo is an act of war then the Japanese attack on America was completley justified.

An embargo is not an act of aggresion, it is a cessasion of certain economic activities.... this is a basic definition, it is not something that can possibly be explained more clearly.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Vesayen
If an embargo is an act of war then the Japanese attack on America was completley justified.

No it wasn't, because of the embargo was justified.

An embargo is not an act of aggresion, it is a cessasion of certain economic activities.... this is a basic definition, it is not something that can possibly be explained more clearly.

You can't explain it, because you are simply ignoring intentions, and just acting like the nation imposing the embargo is just doing it for some arbitrary reason.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Vesayen
If an embargo is an act of war then the Japanese attack on America was completley justified.

Why do you think we expected them to attack us? We just didn't expect a surprise attack. Once we embargoed them, we fully expected Japan to declare war. This is because an embargo is an internationally recognized act of war, and no amount of your BAMing will prove otherwise.

[Az]

Number two, there is only one recognized CB in the post 1945 world, and that is to defend yourself against invasion. A state is authorized to take whatver steps are necessary to repell an invasion, that's it. If you want to go to war for another reason, you have to get the UNSC to agree.

In that case, we return to the "The current world order sucks domain", another favorite of mine.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
One state, equal rights in it. That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

you mean one state on the entire planet, instead of the current 150 or so, right?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Number one, that's redundent.

Number two, there is only one recognized CB in the post 1945 world, and that is to defend yourself against invasion. A state is authorized to take whatver steps are necessary to repell an invasion, that's it. If you want to go to war for another reason, you have to get the UNSC to agree.

No its to defend yourself against aggression. Theres no agreement Im aware of limiting the definition of aggression to actual invasion, as opposed to say, a blockade in international waters, support for terrorist acts on another states soil, etc.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


No its to defend yourself against aggression. Theres no agreement Im aware of limiting the definition of aggression to actual invasion, as opposed to say, a blockade in international waters, support for terrorist acts on another states soil, etc.

Post-2001, support for terrorist attack clearly counts as aggression for this purpose.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Vesayen
If an embargo is an act of war then the Japanese attack on America was completley justified.

Why do you think we expected them to attack us? We just didn't expect a surprise attack. Once we embargoed them, we fully expected Japan to declare war. This is because an embargo is an internationally recognized act of war, and no amount of your BAMing will prove otherwise.

no we expected them to attack us because we expected them to ignore international law, as they had done since the beginning of the China incident.

A nation is sovereign under international law. that means it has the right to determine what happens on its territory - including the right to ban trade from its territory to the territory of another state. That does NOT extend the right to physically interfere with the trade passing through international waters. Youre BAMMING very heavily now, Guev.

BTW, this would mean that the USSR did have a CB against the US during the Cuban missile crisis. JFK knew however that the USSR would be trounced in a conventional naval war. He gambled that they wouldnt escalate to a nuclear war (and of course he was negotiating a quid pro quo on the missiles in Turkey).

In any case the Egyptian blockade was not focused on weapons, but was a general economic blockade.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
the holiest place in Judaism

How is Judaism relevant to this discussion? Stop threadjacking.

Because Judaism has NOTHING to do with Israel.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Number two, there is only one recognized CB in the post 1945 world, and that is to defend yourself against invasion. A state is authorized to take whatver steps are necessary to repell an invasion, that's it. If you want to go to war for another reason, you have to get the UNSC to agree.

That reminds me of the words of former Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, August 12, 1945 (emphasis mine):

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

Getting back to the peace process, I would say that when Israelis recognize that the main obstacle to peace is the settlers, the peace process has a chance. Recently an important step has been taken in this direction by someone who is often described as Israel's Walter Cronkite:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...568372806.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/580935.html

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q]

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.

OK, I'm confused. You're saying that Nasser had absolutely no interest in war. And yet you claim that Israel attacked Egypt in '56 in an effort to make the straits recognized international waterways. Surely Nasser would have realized that by blockading the straits, that Israel would respond with war, since according to you, Israel did just that a decade earlier.

And that's if you ignore that nasser would have had to realize that Israel couldn't indefinately survive without shipping through the straits as well as maintain the cost of keeping the reserves on alert after Nasser had put forces in the Sinai.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The facts are against you.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Given the stateless nature of the OTs (exclsuing the Golan), I actually don't have any problem with Israel annexing them. Of course, once that happens, three million Palestinians immediately become citizens of Israel and can vote.

So you have no problems with Israel having annexed the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem?

Of course, the Palestinians in East Jerusalem turned down their citizenship, but that was their choice.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Edan


So you have no problems with Israel having annexed the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem?

Of course, the Palestinians in East Jerusalem turned down their citizenship, but that was their choice.

I think that it's a fair deal if we give the Pal's the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and we keep East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
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.

:blink: :blink:

Wow, you believe that piece of Soviet propoganda? Russians have since admitted that it was false and intended to stir up the middle east, because they believed a war would alter the balance of power to the Soviets benefit. Even the Egyptian Chief of Staff at the time, who was sent to verify the intelligence, admits that he discovered the intelligence to be false.