stan187
Quote:
|
The logic is not the same, and the difference is not irrelevant. We don't have to repeat ourselves, we proved those points pretty blatantly.
|
I was given a very clear and concise logical equation. I was told that the Israeli attack upon Egypt was justified because Egypt engaged in an action which it knew Israel would consider an "act of war".
By precisely the same reasoning, the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor would be justified.
Quote:
|
As shown by the treaty that Shek posted, closing the Straits was indeed an internationally recognized casus belli.
|
Egypt never signed that treaty. Egypt regarded the Straits as territorial waters, which, by submission of that treaty, you seem to agree with, since it applies to territorial waters.
There is nothing in that treaty which even remotely implies that preventing passage of ships in territorial waters is a "casus belli".
International law recognizes only two legitimate use of armed forces in international relations; the use of force must be 1)self-defense against armed attack or 2) authorized by the UN Security Council.
Quote:
|
The biggest danger standing in the way of securing that existence of course being the 7 divisions and 3 brigades of Egyptian troops massing on the Israeli border.
|
Both US and Israeli intelligence predicted that in the event of war, Israel would defeat Egypt within a matter of days, which certainly proved to be a correct assessment of the imbalance between Israeli and Egyptian power.
This attempt to portray Israel as some sort of David "preempting" the big bad Goliath is pure fiction.
You've added that the Egyptian troops were "getting ready to attack". This seems to be your own invention.
You've dismissed them, but the fact is that leading Israelis have acknowledged that Israel was not in dire threat of an imminent attack from Egypt.
The quote from Rabin regarding the Yom Kippur War serves to demonstrate that the 1967 war was not the only case in which Israel played the "David" card, and not the only case in which Rabin later acknowledged the truth of the matter, that the existence of Israel was not threatened by its neighbors.
ZFBoxcar
You keep reiterating the point that "blockade" and "embargo" have different meanings. I don't know why. The fact that these words have different meanings is irrelevant.
I was given a very clear and concise logical equation. I was told that the Israeli attack upon Egypt was justified because Egypt engaged in an action which it knew Israel would consider an "act of war".
The logic employed was: 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.
By precisely the same reasoning, the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor would be justified: a) The US knew embargoing Japan, among other steps, would be regarded by Japan as an act of war; b) The US embargoed Japan, among other steps; c) It was therefore an act of war; d) The Japanese attack, since both nations were in a state of war, was justified.
The fallacy in both cases, of course, is in making the assumption that because a nation
considers something as a "casus belli" or an "act of war" does not make it so under international law.
You've dismissed them, but the fact is that leading Israelis have acknowledged that Israel was not in dire threat of an imminent attack from Egypt. These acknowledgments are clearly too inconvenient for you.