Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

There was no imminent threat from Egypt. Egypt was not either in the process nor about attack Israel. We may debate the legality of an embargo, but it is not an act of aggression, which entails the use of military force. Fiery speeches are empty words as often as not, if not more. Massing troops near borders could just as readily be preparation for defense as offense. The simple fact of the matter is that Israel ws the first to attack using military force, which, by definition, makes it an act of aggression, "the supreme international crime".

International law recognizes waters within 12 nautical miles (22.224 km/13.81 miles) as territorial waters. Under international law, the coastal state has jurisdiction to set laws and regulate use of territorial waters. Egypt regarded the Strait of Tiran as territorial waters.

Now, Stan, you said "Israel also publically declared many times that to them, shutting off the Straights was casus belli for war, was tantamount to an act of war and be considered as such."

The logic employed is: a) Egypt knew cutting off the straits would be regarded by Israel as an act of war; b) Egypt cut off the straights; c) It was therefore an act of war; d) The Israeli attack, since both nations were in a state of war, was justified.

First, this is fallacious. Just because a nation declares something to be an act of war doesn't make it so under international law. North Korea has declared that any sanctions against it will be regarded as an act of war. Do you believe that because North Korea declares a thing, this makes it so?

Second, it relies upon a false assumption. I know of no historian who disagrees that the war began on June 5. What does Israeli itself call the war? The "Six Day War". Why? Because Israel itself recognizes that a state of war existed as of June 5 -- not before -- when they engaged in a surprise attack against Egypt.

Third, employing this logic: a) The US knew embargoing Japan would be regarded by Japan as an act of war; b) The US embargoed Japan; c) It was therefore an act of war; d) The Japanese attack, since both nations were in a state of war, was justified.