Stan187
Quote:
|
You yourself were implying that embargo and blockade were the same thing, that is not at all irrelent, and the only reason you say that now is because he proved you wrong.
|
I implied no such thing. Once again,
The fact that "embargo" is not synonymous with "blockade" is irrelevant.
The logic employed in both cases is precisely the same. I won't repeat it. See above.
Quote:
|
Acts of aggression are defined by intentions as well.
|
False. Acts of aggression are crimes of deeds, not of thoughts. There is no "thought crime" known as "aggression". But it's very Orwellian of you to suggest otherwise.
Quote:
|
It is widely agreed upon in the world that the Straits are international waters. This is not something that just Israel said, which is what you're implying.
|
I never implied any such thing. I simply observed the fact that Egypt regarded the Strait as territorial waters, and that under international law this was a reasonable position. Israel could have taken the dispute to the UN to reach a diplomatic settlement. Instead, they committed an act of aggression on June 5 when they launched Mirage jet aircraft and virtually destroyed the Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground.
shek
Again, the fact that "embargo" and "blockade" have different meanings is irrelevant. The logic applied in both cases is the same.
parihaka
Quote:
|
The Japanese never, as the Israelis did, claim the actions against them would be casus belli for war.
|
The embargo was regarded as an act of war by Japan, and the US knew it would be regarded as such.
Hence, applying the logic in question, the attack upon Pearl Harbor was justified.
I, of course, reject this conclusion and recognize the flaw in the logic.
parihaka
Quote:
|
Ask him to debate your points, not the ones he posits on your behalf.
|
I've directly responded to a logical formula presented as an argument by demonstrating the fallacy of the logic.
That's not a strawman.
Quote:
|
The Rabin quote from after the war doesn't jive with the historical record during the run up to the war.
|
On the contrary, what doesn't "jive" with the historical record is this notion that Egypt was an imminent threat justifying a pre-emptive strike.
By definition, without an imminent threat, there is no "pre-emptive" strike, only aggression.
Quote:
If Rabin knew that Nasser didn't want war, and that he didn't have an offensive capability, why did he:
1) State that the decision to go to war was a question of whether Israel was "to be or not to be."
2) Have a nervous breakdown on 27 May?
His actions during the crisis period seemingly contradict his post-war claim. Do you have an explanation?
|
Your implied logic is:
1) Rabin said the decision to go to war was a question of "to be or not to be" so therefore Israel must truly have been under threat of imminent attack from Egypt.
2) Rabin had a nervous breakdown on 27 May, so therefore Israel must truly have been under threat of imminent attack from Egypt.
Both are non-sequiturs. No "explanation" is therefore required. I could think of some, but it's irrelevant.
I have a question for you. Why, if Israel was truly under threat of imminent attack from Egypt, did Avraham Sela, a fellow and colleague of Michael B. Oren at the Shalem Center, say, "The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan, and Nasser's defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike."?
Why would Menachem Begin say, "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."
Why would Ezer Weizman, General and Chief of Operations, say, "There was no threat of destruction against the state of Israel"; and "There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting"; and "The Jews of the Diaspora would like, for reasons of their own, to see us as heroes, our backs to the wall. This desire of theirs, however, will not affect the reality of the situation"?
Why would Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev say, "We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such possibility"?
And why would Rabin say, "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficent to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it"?
Could it be that these are honest statements?