Quote:
|
I see you've retracted your claim that Egypt shot at any Israeli ships. Thanks for that acknowledgment.
|
I never said they shot. Okay, either you are not understanding or you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue. Let us say I am standing just outside your property with a sniper rifle and I tell you that if you leave your property I will shoot you. Let us say that I can and will follow through with this threat. Let us also say that the police (the great powers, the UN etc, aren't willing to do anything). Does the fact that you decide not to leave your property make what I am doing acceptable? Does it mean that you have no right to take action? Why should you have to leave your property and get murdered
before you have the right to do anything?
Quote:
|
As for the "distinction between an embargo and a blockade", I don't know why you keep repeating this fiction that I "refuse to accept" that the two words aren't synonymous.
|
I don't know why you keep repeating the fiction that I and others have repeatedly said you think they are synonymous. What I said was that you refuse to accept a
moral distinction between them.
Quote:
|
The distinction, however, is irrelevant insofar as the logical equation I was given is concerned. I was commenting on that specific logical equation.
|
It is only irrelevant if you think that an embargo and a blockade are equal in terms of international law and moral significance. Any nation has the right not to trade with another (or else the Arab League boycott of Israel would be an international crime), they don't have the right to threaten to destroy any attempts at trade between one nation and another. Threatening to destroy a nations ships [if they move past a certain boundary on international waters] is an act of war. A blockade
is a threat of war. In addition to the other threats broadcast on Egyptian radio back then.