Olmert puts peace on table to free soldier - Page 3

Yirmeyahu · 12-01-2006, 08:08 AM

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.

**Shek** · 12-01-2006, 09:15 AM

Quote:

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.

Yirmey,
Your grasp of the English language is poor. The Egyptians did not embargo Israel, they blockaded them by denying access into the Straits of Tiran. Ergo, all of your analysis resting on "embargo" is invalid.

EDIT: "Blockade" is also not synonymous with "sanctions." Your conclusions from your NK sanctions bit is therefore also a non-sequitir.

**ZFBoxcar** · 12-01-2006, 13:29 PM

LOL Troung, what does your title mean?

**Shek** · 12-01-2006, 15:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

Stan187"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." -- Yitzhaq Rabin

"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." -- Menachem Begin

"There was no threat of destruction against the state of Israel" -- Ezer Weizman

"The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensie plan, and Nasser's defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike." -- Avraham Sela, Shalem Center

Glad to see that you source your quotes

Let's see what people were thinking prior to the initiation of hostilities. All quotes are from an article by Michael Oren, who has written a definitive book on the Six Day War.

To give a perspective on why his writings are so persuasive, it is because his research includes thousands of newly (within the past decade) declassified documents.

Quote:

The newly released Israeli diplomatic documents from the period leading up to June 5, 1967 offer overwhelming evidence against any suggestion that Israel sought war with the Arabs. Nor do the tens of thousands of papers so far declassified contain a single reference to any desire to divert public opinion from the economic situation, to overthrow Arab rulers or to conquer and occupy the West Bank, the Sinai or the Golan Heights. On the contrary, the picture that emerges is one of a country and leadership deeply fearful of military confrontation, and desperate to avoid one at almost any price. The sole hope of doing so, the Israelis believed, rested with the United States. But the Johnson Administration, though favorably disposed to Israel, was severely limited by domestic political constraints and its all-consuming involvement in Vietnam. These limitations prevented the Americans from taking the measures that might have restored the status quo ante in the Sinai and the Straits of Tiran and stemmed the momentum toward war that Nasser had generated.

Moreover, it cannot be claimed that Israel was wrong in considering the use of force. Confronted with a harsh economic blockade, military pacts between heavily armed neighbors for the express purpose of aggression against Israel, and hundreds of thousands of enemy troops actually massed on its borders, it would have been the height of irresponsibility for Israel’s government not to plan for preemptive action. Nor can Israel be faulted for employing the threat of force to spur the United States to intervene diplomatically. The few measures Johnson did adopt--reiterations of America’s 1957 pledges on Tiran, the Red Sea Regatta proposal, the representations to Arab leaders--were directly attributable to those intimations by Israel. And, in the final analysis, the Israelis held back from acting militarily until the very last opportunity for a diplomatic settlement had passed, even though they knew that every day they waited was costing them dearly in resources, readiness and morale, and was likely to constrict their own maneuverability if war became unavoidable.

So, here are some quotes to chew on:

Quote:

No longer a matter of a potential military clash along Israel’s southern border, the threat had become, as Chief of Staff Rabin observed, “a question of ‘to be or not to be.’”39 Nasser himself drove the point home in a speech to his National Assembly: “If we have been able to restore the conditions to what they were before 1956, God will surely help and urge us to restore the situation to what it was in 1948…. We are now ready to confront Israel. We are now ready to deal with the entire Palestine question. The issue now at hand is not the Gulf of Aqaba, the Straits of Tiran or the withdrawal of UNEF, but … the aggression which took place in Palestine in 1948 with the collaboration of Britain and the United States.”40

Seems like Rabin gained some sort of new confidence after the crushing defeat of pan-Arabism (after all, he suffered from a nervous breakdown during the lead up to the war - not quite the reaction of someone who "knew it"), and that your quote (if it is valid), doesn't reflect the reality of the situation as it unfolded.

As far as Begin goes, once again this is a quote 15 years removed from the situation, and doesn't reflect the reality of thinking at the time. Furthermore, as cherry picked by you, it doesn't put the quote into context, and in fact, provides the opposite conclusion as the immediate context provides (allow the speech is quite contradictory in many fashions over 1967). In the speech, he follows your quote with:

Quote:

This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.

As far as Weizman's quote goes, what is the context? Is this supreme confidence in your own military's capability, or was it dismissal of the pan-Arab forces? When was it made? This quote is not illuminating.

Finally, I'd ask if Nasser had no intentions on attacking, then why did he have a planned attack for May 27 scheduled?

Quote:

But it was the Egyptians, not the Israelis, who were preparing “to go.” As Israeli intelligence had warned, the leadership in Cairo had authorized a major military attack against Israel’s port city of Eilat and other strategic targets in the Negev.60 The plan, code-named Asad, was to be put into operation the following day, Saturday, May 27, and would have gone ahead had not Johnson hotlined the Kremlin, passing along Eban’s warning of an impending Egyptian attack. The result was a visit to Nasser at three in the morning by Soviet Ambassador Dmitri Pozhdaev, who conveyed Moscow’s stern objection to any initiation of war by Egypt. Nasser promptly canceled the attack.61

**ZFBoxcar** · 12-01-2006, 16:44 PM

Quote:

Glad to see that you source your quotes

He does!

Quote:

The quotes don't come from those sources. They come from Yitzhaq Rabin, Menachem Begin, Ezer Weizman, and Avraham Sela. The fact that they have been repeated on websites you regard as biased is irrelevant to the point, which is that it's long been acknowledged by Israel that there was no imminent threat of attack from Egypt.

You see? He talked to Rabin, Begin, Weizman, and Sela personally!

**Shek** · 12-01-2006, 21:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

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.

Yirmey,

You are not applying the correct law. The Strait of Tiran is 8 miles wide and passes between Saudi Arabia and Egypt. You can see the conflict already of what you are trying to apply as law.

The appropriate law to apply is:

Quote:

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/ins...torial_sea.pdf

Article 16, paragraph 4

There shall be no suspension of the innocent passage of foreign ships through straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and another part of the high seas or the territorial sea of a foreign State.

The 1958 Convention formalized the existing customary law into treaty law. By closing the straits to Israel, Egypt was violating international law and provided a causus belli with this act of war.

troung · 12-02-2006, 00:08 AM

Quote:

LOL Troung, what does your title mean?

American urban slang.

Stan187 · 12-02-2006, 02:50 AM

Haven't seen any stupid statements from the Yirmeister lately, is he hanging his cleats up?

Yirmeyahu · 12-02-2006, 06:02 AM

shek,

Quote:

Your grasp of the English language is poor. The Egyptians did not embargo Israel, they blockaded them by denying access into the Straits of Tiran. Ergo, all of your analysis resting on "embargo" is invalid.

Your grasp of logic is poor. 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:

Glad to see that you source your quotes

Yitazhq Rabin was quoted in Le Monde, February 28, 1968.

Menachem Begin made that statement at a speech at the National Defense College, excerpted from The New York Times, August 21, 1982, reprinted from the Jerusalem Post.

Ezer Weizman was quoted in Ha'aretz, March 20, 1972.

Avraham Sela was quoted from his book "Decline of the Arab-Israeli Conflict".

Quote:

Let's see what people were thinking prior to the initiation of hostilities. All quotes are from an article by Michael Oren, who has written a definitive book on the Six Day War.

I've read Oren's book.

Acts of "aggression" are not defined by intentions. The fact is that Israel initiated military action on June 5, when it launched Mirage jet aircraft and virtually destroyed the Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground.

shek,

Quote:

You are not applying the correct law. The Strait of Tiran is 8 miles wide and passes between Saudi Arabia and Egypt. You can see the conflict already of what you are trying to apply as law.

8 miles is less than 12 nautical miles, the distance which is recognized under international law as the "territorial waters" of a state. Hence, as I noted, Egypt regarded the Strait as its territorial waters.

As I also said, we may debate the legality of the blockade, but the fact is that Israel committed the first act of aggression on June 5.

**Shek** · 12-02-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

shek,

Your grasp of logic is poor. 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.

Yitazhq Rabin was quoted in Le Monde, February 28, 1968.

Menachem Begin made that statement at a speech at the National Defense College, excerpted from The New York Times, August 21, 1982, reprinted from the Jerusalem Post.

Ezer Weizman was quoted in Ha'aretz, March 20, 1972.

Avraham Sela was quoted from his book "Decline of the Arab-Israeli Conflict".

I've read Oren's book.

Acts of "aggression" are not defined by intentions. The fact is that Israel initiated military action on June 5, when it launched Mirage jet aircraft and virtually destroyed the Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground.

shek,

8 miles is less than 12 nautical miles, the distance which is recognized under international law as the "territorial waters" of a state. Hence, as I noted, Egypt regarded the Strait as its territorial waters.

As I also said, we may debate the legality of the blockade, but the fact is that Israel committed the first act of aggression on June 5.

Yirmey,

For someone who tries to profess a lack of interest in semantics, it is incredibly amazing how much you couch your argument in semantics and argue about it.

As far as your logic comments, since embargo and blockade are not the same, you cannot apply the analogy. Once again, back to semantics, and you are once again wrong.

Finally, with the strait being 8 miles wide, that means that it would be the territorial waters of both Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I figured that that would jump out at readers as being an obvious clue that you could not apply the 12 mile limit here, as it would mean that you mutually exclusive couldn't have complete control. Therefore, you must look to something else in international law to define who controls the strait, and as it turns out, it's Chapter 16 from the 1958 convention. Now, if a nation is at war, then you can prevent passage - however, by initiating the blockade, you are declaring a state of war, which is why this blockade was a casus belli.

As an analogous situation, please answer me this question - why did President Kennedy declare a "quarantine" of Soviet ships heading for Cuba instead of declaring a "blockade" during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, just five years prior to the Six-Day War.

You are the king of denial!

Stan187 · 12-02-2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

shek,

Your grasp of logic is poor. 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.

Yitazhq Rabin was quoted in Le Monde, February 28, 1968.

Menachem Begin made that statement at a speech at the National Defense College, excerpted from The New York Times, August 21, 1982, reprinted from the Jerusalem Post.

Ezer Weizman was quoted in Ha'aretz, March 20, 1972.

Avraham Sela was quoted from his book "Decline of the Arab-Israeli Conflict".

I've read Oren's book.

Acts of "aggression" are not defined by intentions. The fact is that Israel initiated military action on June 5, when it launched Mirage jet aircraft and virtually destroyed the Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground.

shek,

8 miles is less than 12 nautical miles, the distance which is recognized under international law as the "territorial waters" of a state. Hence, as I noted, Egypt regarded the Strait as its territorial waters.

As I also said, we may debate the legality of the blockade, but the fact is that Israel committed the first act of aggression on June 5.

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 get it. If its not a point toward your argument because it actually disproves it, then its irrelevant. Yeah, thats setting a good precedent.

Acts of aggression are defined by intentions as well. How you justify saying the opposite is beyond all of us.

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.

**Shek** · 12-02-2006, 10:03 AM

Yirmey,

For your benefit, an embargo is "a legal prohbition of commerce." It is legal because a sovereign nation cannot be forced to trade with another entity.

On the other hand, a blockade is " a restrictive measure designed to obstruct the commerce and communications of an unfriendly nation." This is more than an embargo because it prevents nations that wish to trade with the blockaded nation from trading and engaging in legal commerce.

In the case of the Strait of Tiran, it was an illegal closing of international waters to any innocent vessel conducting commerce with Israel.

So, you are clearly conflating a legal and illegal action. So, you Japan vs. NK vs. Israel examples are not synonymous, are not analagous, and so your logic does not hold, while mine clearly does.

**Parihaka** · 12-02-2006, 15:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

The US also knew that embargoing Japan, alongside other steps, would be regarded by the Japanese as an act of war.

Again, by this logic, the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified. By this logic, is was Roosevelt's own "stupid choice" to provoke the Japanese attack.

LOL, you are dealing with military people and historians here.
The Japanese never, as the Israelis did, claim the actions against them would be casus belli for war.
This constant oulining of peoples arguments prior to them having made them show that you've rehearsed you debating points well in advance, it also means your not the slightest bit interested in others points of view, as you are simply making their arguments up for them, and destroying those, not the ones actually being posted. As you are so fond of saying "That inconsistency is instructive, and tells a lot about" you.
Try reading back through the arguments and come up with counters to their real posts, not the ones in your head.

**Parihaka** · 12-02-2006, 15:55 PM

Gentlemen, you're being trolled. Ask him to debate your points, not the ones he posits on your behalf.

**Parihaka** · 12-02-2006, 16:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shek

Yirmey,

For your benefit, an embargo is "a legal prohbition of commerce." It is legal because a sovereign nation cannot be forced to trade with another entity.

On the other hand, a blockade is " a restrictive measure designed to obstruct the commerce and communications of an unfriendly nation." This is more than an embargo because it prevents nations that wish to trade with the blockaded nation from trading and engaging in legal commerce.

In the case of the Strait of Tiran, it was an illegal closing of international waters to any innocent vessel conducting commerce with Israel.

So, you are clearly conflating a legal and illegal action. So, you Japan vs. NK vs. Israel examples are not synonymous, are not analagous, and so your logic does not hold, while mine clearly does.

oops, sorry Shek, I see you're on to it.

12-01-2006, 08:08 AM	#31 (permalink)
Yirmeyahu Banished Regular Join Date: 11-27-06 Posts: 80 Country:	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. Last edited by Yirmeyahu : 12-01-2006 at 08:11 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Articles and links for the Military Professional	Officer of Engineers	The Staff College	115	11-20-2006 11:28 AM
Pakistan to free 435 Indian prisoners to push peace	Asim Aquil	Political Discussions	1	09-10-2005 14:44 PM
Second U.S. Soldier hung in effigy	Lunatock	Current Affairs	65	03-02-2005 23:28 PM
Ludwig Von Mises on Iron Theory of Wages	Praxus	Current Affairs	28	11-15-2004 02:48 AM
Truth about North Korea and the US' foreign policies.	GuyFromTheSouth	South Asian Defense Topics	0	10-26-2004 08:33 AM

12-01-2006, 13:29 PM	#33 (permalink)
ZFBoxcar Moderator Join Date: 08-03-03 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 2,125 Country:	LOL Troung, what does your title mean?

12-02-2006, 02:50 AM	#38 (permalink)
Stan187 WAB BOUNCER *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-24-06 Posts: 2,323 Country:	Haven't seen any stupid statements from the Yirmeister lately, is he hanging his cleats up?

12-02-2006, 10:03 AM	#42 (permalink)
Shek *Military Professional* Moderator Join Date: 02-23-05 Location: Krblachistan Posts: 7,629 Country:	Yirmey, For your benefit, an embargo is "a legal prohbition of commerce." It is legal because a sovereign nation cannot be forced to trade with another entity. On the other hand, a blockade is " a restrictive measure designed to obstruct the commerce and communications of an unfriendly nation." This is more than an embargo because it prevents nations that wish to trade with the blockaded nation from trading and engaging in legal commerce. In the case of the Strait of Tiran, it was an illegal closing of international waters to any innocent vessel conducting commerce with Israel. So, you are clearly conflating a legal and illegal action. So, you Japan vs. NK vs. Israel examples are not synonymous, are not analagous, and so your logic does not hold, while mine clearly does.

12-02-2006, 15:55 PM	#44 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,462 Country:	Gentlemen, you're being trolled. Ask him to debate your points, not the ones he posits on your behalf.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)