Olmert puts peace on table to free soldier - Page 5

Yirmeyahu · 12-11-2006, 09:58 AM

ZFBoxcar

Please source your claim that Egypt shot at any Israeli ships.

As for the Israeli statements I've posted, I've already cited the sources for them. If I missed any, let me know and I'd be happy to provide you the source.

shek

Begin claimed the war "a war of self-defence", but he also acknowledged that Israel "had a choice", that they did not attack "for lack of an alternative". The Egyptian presence in the Sinai did "not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

That is a clear and unambiguous acknowledgment that Israel attacked Egypt first. Of course, that's hardly controversial. Nobody's claiming that Egypt attacked first (well, except for ZFBoxcar). Moreover, it's a clear acknowledgment that there was no imminent threat. A bit further on: "Who knows if there would have been an attack against us?"

There you have it.

As for Rabin, he stated very clearly: "I do not think Nasser wanted war." You're argument is that he referred to troop movements into the Sinai on May 14, but the Israeli attack was on June 5, several weeks later, and therefore using the quote "is misleading".

There's nothing misleading about it. He was not quoted May 14, 1967, he was quoted the following year, in 1968, well after June 5 1967. Obviously, he made his statement well aware of any changes in the situation between May 14 and June 5. The fact is that any changes between those dates didn't change his assessment: "I do not think Nasser wanted war."

Quote:

So, the bottomline behind the quote is that it applies to May 14, and not the situation on June 5, and therefore, attempting to use it is misleading.

To fill in the space between May 14 and June 5, here's a brief timeline (all are cited from Oren's "Six Days of War":

Aerial photos on May 19 showed the buildup to be 80K men, 550 tanks, and 1000 guns (Oren 76).

Same paragraph, two sentences prior:

"It's unclear whether Egypt's intention was from the start aimed at a military confrontation or at a limited gain of prestige," Yariv beifed his senior officers on May 19.

You're claiming this citation from Oren demonstrates how the situation had changed from May 14. But this briefing was on May 19, and was regarding the very same troop movements, which began on the 14, as Rabin noted. This is the same troop movement Rabin was referring to, not some later one.

Quote:

By May 20, a full six divisions were in the Sinai (Oren 78).

This is interesting. The actual text:

A full six divisions had by May 20 taken up positions in Sinai, "from which they can deliver massive retaliation against Israeli aggression," reported ['Abd al-Hakim] 'Amer.

In other words, the declared purpose of the forces was to deter Israeli aggression, not for the initation of aggression itself.

Quote:

On May 23, Rabin had a nervous breakdown where he was temporarily suceeded in command and placed on quarters to rest (Oren 91).

Same page:

"I sunk into a profound crisis brought on by my guilt...that I had led the country into war under the most difficult circumstances," he later told an Israeli journalist. "Everything was on my shoulders, rightly or wrongly. I had eaten almost nothing for almost nine days, hadn't slept, was smoking non-stop, and was physically exhausted."

Next paragraph:

Rabin's collapse was kept secret from the Israeli public, and would only be disclosed many years later... "I endangered the state...my mistakes," Rabin stammered. "The biggest and most brutal war yet."

Quote:

Did you deliberately misquote Rabin, or did you not know that his quote referred to the situation on May 14 and not June 5?

Stan187,

Quote:

LoL, he probably just figured that no one on this board owned a copy of Oren's book.

LOL! Shek must have though I was bluffing when I said I'd read Oren's book already.

**Shek** · 12-11-2006, 10:43 AM

Yirmey,

If you want to play the timeline game, then we can discuss Operation Dawn, a planned Egyptian strike using the exact same troop deployments in the Sinai, called off solely because of the Soviets declaring that they wouldn't intervene on behalf of the Egyptians. The Egyptian response - a redeployment of their forces from the Sinai? Nope. They maintained the same number of troops on the Sinai.

So, the number of troops in the Sinai on May 20 constituted an offensive strike force capability. The person who ordered the implementation of Operation Dawn? One 'Amer, who looks an awful lot like your 'Amer that declared that the deployment was solely for defensive purposes. Oops.

Given the irrationality of Egyptian actions and the lukewarm US support of Israel in the bigger Cold War chess match, the Egyptian de facto declaration of war by closing off an international body of water to Israeli shipping, the eviction of the UNEF that would keep the peace between Israel and Egypt by the Egyptians, and the strong rhetoric beaming from Radio Cairo, jus ad bellum existed for Israel.

Yirmeyahu · 12-11-2006, 12:53 PM

shek,

Quote:

If you want to play the timeline game, then we can discuss Operation Dawn, a planned Egyptian strike using the exact same troop deployments in the Sinai, called off solely because of the Soviets declaring that they wouldn't intervene on behalf of the Egyptians.

Oren questions whether "Nasser even knew about the plan". He merely speculates that Nasser knew about it, and he also says that "objections to Dawn were raised by senior officers". The Egyptian Chief of Staff considered the plan "disastrous", as Oren tells it, and he explains how Egypt was not prepared to carry out the plan, quoting Fawzi to that effect.

Israel had similar contingency plans to attack Egypt, and had prepared its forces for the attack. The difference, of course, is that Israel carried out it's attack, while Egypt did not.

It was hence Israel which commited the act defined as "aggression", which is "the supreme international crime".

Stan187 · 12-11-2006, 13:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

A full six divisions had by May 20 taken up positions in Sinai, "from which they can deliver massive retaliation against Israeli aggression," reported ['Abd al-Hakim] 'Amer.

In other words, the declared purpose of the forces was to deter Israeli aggression, not for the initation of aggression itself.

Right, thanks for the propoganda. Hizballah also said that they were retaliating against Israelis aggression when the launched missile strikes, crossed the border and killed/kidnapped people. Just like they said that the 1973 war was also started by Israeli aggression. Just like the Soviets were also responding to aggression when they invaded Afghanistan. Please! Get a clue.

Egypt had all the troops the plan called for to attack Israel sitting in the Sinai. Thats a threat. In order to invade Egypt unprovoked, which would be an aggressive act, the Israelis would need to call up reserves, which it only did later. So the buildup for an invasion first took place on the Arab side.

**ZFBoxcar** · 12-11-2006, 20:22 PM

Quote:

Please source your claim that Egypt shot at any Israeli ships.

A blockade means you will shoot at or steal any ship trying to pass a certain point. The fact that Israel never tried to test the blockade by sending ships on a suicide mission does not make the blockade less of a crime. This is why it is so odd that you refuse to accept that there is a moral distinction between an embargo and a blockade.

Stan187 · 12-11-2006, 22:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar

And blockade means you will shoot at or steal any ship trying to pass a certain point. The fact that Israel never tried to test the blockade by sending ships on a suicide mission does not make the blockade less of a crime. This is why it is so odd that you refuse to accept that there is a moral distinction between an embargo and a blockade.

But, but.... but that would make Yirmey wrong... how can this be! Nay, it is impossible for the all-knowing all-knower of militaries, morals, history, politics and international relations, and international law can never be wrong!

/end sarcasm

**Shek** · 12-11-2006, 22:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

shek,

Oren questions whether "Nasser even knew about the plan". He merely speculates that Nasser knew about it, and he also says that "objections to Dawn were raised by senior officers". The Egyptian Chief of Staff considered the plan "disastrous", as Oren tells it, and he explains how Egypt was not prepared to carry out the plan, quoting Fawzi to that effect.

Israel had similar contingency plans to attack Egypt, and had prepared its forces for the attack. The difference, of course, is that Israel carried out it's attack, while Egypt did not.

It was hence Israel which commited the act defined as "aggression", which is "the supreme international crime".

Egypt had units in position, orders issued, with a set SP time. It took a revocation order to stop Operation Dawn. Whether it was well planned, staffed, coordinated, etc. has no bearing as to whether it was ordered and prepared to be executed. Also, whether it was 'Amer that ordered it or Nasser is also irrelevant. If it had been executed under 'Amer's order and not Nasser's, would that somehow remove culpability from the state of Egypt? No.

In any event, it was clear that Nasser kicked out UNEF and understood that the blockade was an internationally causus belli, a blockade proven to be more than just mere rhetoric through the use of sea mines that would detonate in international waters, destroying any and every innocent ship passing through it to the port of Eilat.

From the moment Egypt mined the strait, Israel enjoyed the moral high ground as to jus ad bellum.

Yirmeyahu · 12-12-2006, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Right, thanks for the propoganda.

Well, if you regard Oren as "propaganda", I won't disagree too strongly.

Quote:

Hizballah also said that they were retaliating against Israelis aggression when the launched missile strikes, crossed the border and killed/kidnapped people. Just like they said that the 1973 war was also started by Israeli aggression. Just like the Soviets were also responding to aggression when they invaded Afghanistan. Please! Get a clue.

You forgot, "Just like Israel said they were making a 'preemptive' strike against an imminent Egyptian attack".

Quote:

Egypt had all the troops the plan called for to attack Israel sitting in the Sinai. Thats a threat. In order to invade Egypt unprovoked, which would be an aggressive act, the Israelis would need to call up reserves, which it only did later. So the buildup for an invasion first took place on the Arab side.

The fact remains that Egypt didn't attack Israel. Israel attacked Egypt. That's the simple fact of the matter that you just can't get around.

But let's look at these points. First, you argue Egypt had "all the troops" necessary to attack Israel. Okay, let's work with that as a basis. Israel similarly had all the troops necessary to attack Egypt. This is proven by the fact that Israel attacked Egypt and won a decisive military victory.

Then you argue that for Israel's attack to be "unprovoked", it "would need to call up reserves". I fail to see what the calling up of reserves has to do with anything. As for "provocation", whether or not Israel's attack was "provoked" or not is a judgment. One could argue it was "provoked", just as one could argue that the Egyptian troop movement into the Sinai was "provoked". But because an action is "provoked" does not mean it is justified.

Last, you say "the buildup for the invasion first took place on the Arab side". But the invasion came from the Israeli side, which is the key point here.

ZFBoxcar,

I see you've retracted your claim that Egypt shot at any Israeli ships. Thanks for that acknowledgment.

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. It's simply untrue, and a silly claim to make, particularly in light of the fact that I've explicitly and repeatedly stated that I'm perfectly aware of the distinction between the meaning of the two words and any legal or moral implications that distinction may have.

The distinction, however, is irrelevant insofar as the logical equation I was given is concerned. I was commenting on that specific logical equation.

If you want to present a different logical equation in which the distinction is relevant, please do so.

Stan187,

Few Israeli-flag vessels in fact transversed the Straits of Tiran.

Egypt sought a diplomatic settlement to the dispute over the use of the Straits, such as a judgment from the World Court. US Secretary of Stat Dean Rusk acknowledged that "it was a real possibility" that diplomatic efforts would lead to "getting Egypt to reopen the straits".

Instead, Israel attacked Egypt.

Quote:

Egypt had units in position, orders issued, with a set SP time. It took a revocation order to stop Operation Dawn.

Oren questions whether "Nasser even knew about the plan". He merely speculates that Nasser knew about it, and he also says that "objections to Dawn were raised by senior officers". The Egyptian Chief of Staff considered the plan "disastrous", as Oren tells it, and he explains how Egypt was not prepared to carry out the plan, quoting Fawzi to that effect.

"So vast was the chaos that even a hireling like Murtagi began to question the wisdom of Dawn." (93)

Who made this alleged "revocation order to stop Operation Dawn"? More importantly, who ordered the plan to be put into effect? You know as well as I do that the plan was never implemented.

Quote:

Also, whether it was 'Amer that ordered it or Nasser is also irrelevant. If it had been executed under 'Amer's order and not Nasser's, would that somehow remove culpability from the state of Egypt? No.

I agree, but we're not discussing hypotheticals, we're discussing the actual fact of the matter, which is that the contingency plan was never implemented.

Operation Dawn was a plan to attack Israel on May 27. It didn't happen. The plan was never implemented. Israel attacked Egypt on June 5, long after the alleged "threat" of "Operation Dawn" had ceased to exist.

Quote:

In any event, it was clear that Nasser kicked out UNEF and understood that the blockade was an internationally causus belli, a blockade proven to be more than just mere rhetoric through the use of sea mines that would detonate in international waters, destroying any and every innocent ship passing through it to the port of Eilat. From the moment Egypt mined the strait, Israel enjoyed the moral high ground as to jus ad bellum.

Israel also rejected the idea of UNEF on its side of the border.

The closing of the Straits of Tiran was not an "internationally recognized casus belli". The fact that Israel considered it to be so does not make it so. It was not considered so by the international community.

There were no mines in the Straits, as Oren acknowledged on p. 95.

**Shek** · 12-12-2006, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

The closing of the Straits of Tiran was not an "internationally recognized casus belli". The fact that Israel considered it to be so does not make it so. It was not considered so by the international community.

39 countries were signatory parties to the 1958 conventions that clearly lead to the conclusion that the Strait of Tiran was an international body of water. Among these 39 were the two global superpowers. Thus, it was a blockade, an act of war, and not just the closing of sovereign waters.

Yirmeyahu · 12-12-2006, 03:00 AM

shek,

The closing of the Straits of Tiran was not an "internationally recognized casus belli".

Egypt, as I've observed, never signed the treaty you refer to.

Incidentally, I would agree with you that Egypt's interpretation was incorrect, and that the blockade constituted a violation of international law.

However, it did not constitute a "casus belli".

The interpretation that the blockade was "an act of war" is your own, and not the internationally recognized one.

**Shek** · 12-12-2006, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

shek,

The closing of the Straits of Tiran was not an "internationally recognized casus belli".

Egypt, as I've observed, never signed the treaty you refer to.

Incidentally, I would agree with you that Egypt's interpretation was incorrect, and that the blockade constituted a violation of international law.

However, it did not constitute a "casus belli".

The interpretation that the blockade was "an act of war" is your own, and not the internationally recognized one.

Why was the operation to prevent Soviet ships reaching Cuba during the Cuban Missile crisis (in 1962, five years prior to 1967) called a "quarantine" and not a "blockade"?

**ZFBoxcar** · 12-12-2006, 09:52 AM

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.

Stan187 · 12-12-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

Well, if you regard Oren as "propaganda", I won't disagree too strongly.

You forgot, "Just like Israel said they were making a 'preemptive' strike against an imminent Egyptian attack".

The fact remains that Egypt didn't attack Israel. Israel attacked Egypt. That's the simple fact of the matter that you just can't get around.

But let's look at these points. First, you argue Egypt had "all the troops" necessary to attack Israel. Okay, let's work with that as a basis. Israel similarly had all the troops necessary to attack Egypt. This is proven by the fact that Israel attacked Egypt and won a decisive military victory.

Then you argue that for Israel's attack to be "unprovoked", it "would need to call up reserves". I fail to see what the calling up of reserves has to do with anything. As for "provocation", whether or not Israel's attack was "provoked" or not is a judgment. One could argue it was "provoked", just as one could argue that the Egyptian troop movement into the Sinai was "provoked". But because an action is "provoked" does not mean it is justified.

Last, you say "the buildup for the invasion first took place on the Arab side". But the invasion came from the Israeli side, which is the key point here.

ZFBoxcar,

I see you've retracted your claim that Egypt shot at any Israeli ships. Thanks for that acknowledgment.

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. It's simply untrue, and a silly claim to make, particularly in light of the fact that I've explicitly and repeatedly stated that I'm perfectly aware of the distinction between the meaning of the two words and any legal or moral implications that distinction may have.

The distinction, however, is irrelevant insofar as the logical equation I was given is concerned. I was commenting on that specific logical equation.

If you want to present a different logical equation in which the distinction is relevant, please do so.

Stan187,

Few Israeli-flag vessels in fact transversed the Straits of Tiran.

Egypt sought a diplomatic settlement to the dispute over the use of the Straits, such as a judgment from the World Court. US Secretary of Stat Dean Rusk acknowledged that "it was a real possibility" that diplomatic efforts would lead to "getting Egypt to reopen the straits".

Instead, Israel attacked Egypt.

Oren questions whether "Nasser even knew about the plan". He merely speculates that Nasser knew about it, and he also says that "objections to Dawn were raised by senior officers". The Egyptian Chief of Staff considered the plan "disastrous", as Oren tells it, and he explains how Egypt was not prepared to carry out the plan, quoting Fawzi to that effect.

"So vast was the chaos that even a hireling like Murtagi began to question the wisdom of Dawn." (93)

Who made this alleged "revocation order to stop Operation Dawn"? More importantly, who ordered the plan to be put into effect? You know as well as I do that the plan was never implemented.

I agree, but we're not discussing hypotheticals, we're discussing the actual fact of the matter, which is that the contingency plan was never implemented.

Operation Dawn was a plan to attack Israel on May 27. It didn't happen. The plan was never implemented. Israel attacked Egypt on June 5, long after the alleged "threat" of "Operation Dawn" had ceased to exist.

Israel also rejected the idea of UNEF on its side of the border.

The closing of the Straits of Tiran was not an "internationally recognized casus belli". The fact that Israel considered it to be so does not make it so. It was not considered so by the international community.

There were no mines in the Straits, as Oren acknowledged on p. 95.

Your awesome practice of trying to put words in other people's mouths and then arguing against those very words and stances that you made up are not really amusing anyone but yourself.

We are discussing facts indeed. Fact, casus belli was internationally recognized. Fact, there was an international treaty that guaranteed Israel's passage. Fact, the Egyptians were not aiming to negotiate. Countries don't negotiate with 8 divisions of troops planted on your doorstep.

There is no need to send an Israeli ship through to get shot at in order to verify a state of war existed. With an army on the doorstep, and an illegal blockade of shipping, which were both Egyptian choices, Israel not left with any choices but only one course of actions. This is not disputed by anyone except silly revisionts like you.

Yirmeyahu · 12-12-2006, 13:21 PM

Quote:

I never said they shot. Okay, either you are not understanding or you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.

You argued that Egypt had commited an act of war. I disagreed. You replied:

Quote:

I never said that a nation claiming something to be an act of war makes it so. But shooting at any Israeli ship that tries to go through the Straits of Tiran IS an act of war.

Surely you can see how I interpreted you saying that "shooting at any Israeli ship that tries to go through the Straits of Tiran IS an act of war" as an argument that Egypt commited an act of war as a claim that Egypt had shot at an Israeli ship(s).

Quote:

I don't know why you keep repeating the fiction that I and others have repeatedly said you think they are synonymous.

Shek:
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.

Stan187
You yourself were implying that embargo and blockade were the same thing...

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.

Shek:
Yirmey, 1. Blockades and embargoes are inherently different. A blockade is an internationally recognized casus belli. An embargo is not.

ZFBoxcar:
For the love of God no they aren't! That is like saying the difference between calling somebody a bad name and firing a gun at them are the same. A blockade means that Egypt would shoot at any Israeli ship trying to pass by. An embargo just means Egypt would not trade with Israel, which is within their rights.

ZFBoxcar:
A blockade means you will shoot at or steal any ship trying to pass a certain point. The fact that Israel never tried to test the blockade by sending ships on a suicide mission does not make the blockade less of a crime. This is why it is so odd that you refuse to accept that there is a moral distinction between an embargo and a blockade.

Surely you can see how I could interpret you and others repeatedly reiterating the definitional distinction between "blockade" and "embargo", noting that they are "not synonymous", telling me I implied that "blockade and embargo were the same thing", that "blockades and embargoes are inherently different", reiterating once again the difference between "blockade" and "embargo", reiterating yet again the difference between "blockade" and "embargo", and saying that I "refuse to accept that there is a moral distinction between an embargo and a blockade" as being responses based on a belief that I regard the two as being synonymous, that I recognize no distionction between them.

Quote:

It is only irrelevant if you think that an embargo and a blockade are equal in terms of international law and moral significance.

On the contrary, the fact that embargo and blockade are not equal in terms of international law and moral significance is irrelevant to the logical equation I had addressed. I've been over that repeatedly. It's quite simple logic.

I'll explain it yet again. I was presented with an argument employing the following logic: a) Israel regarded the blockade of the Straits as an act of war; b) Egypt knew Israel would regard any blockade as an act of war; c) Therefore, the Israeli military response was justified.

By precisely this same logic, we see that: a) Japan regarded the embargo and other steps as an act of war; b) The US knew Japan would regard the embargo and other steps as an act of war; c) Therefore, the Japanese military response was justified.

The fallacy in both syllogisms is in assuming that because a nation considers an act, whatever it may be, as an act of war, that therefore it is an act of war justifying a military response.

Yirmeyahu · 12-12-2006, 13:35 PM

Quote:

Your awesome practice of trying to put words in other people's mouths and then arguing against those very words and stances that you made up are not really amusing anyone but yourself.

Provide one example where I've done any such thing.

Quote:

We are discussing facts indeed. Fact, casus belli was internationally recognized.

False. It was not "internationally recognized" that Israel was justified in responding to the closing of the Straits with military violence. This is pure fiction. It was internationally recognized that the dispute should be settled diplomatically.

Quote:

Fact, there was an international treaty that guaranteed Israel's passage.

False. The legal status of the Straits was in question. Egypt was not a party to the treaty you speak of and regarded the straits as territorial, not international, waters.

Quote:

Fact, the Egyptians were not aiming to negotiate.

False. That is an opinion. Egypt sought a diplomatic settlement to the dispute over the use of the Straits, such as a judgment from the World Court. US Secretary of Stat Dean Rusk acknowledged that "it was a real possibility" that diplomatic efforts would lead to "getting Egypt to reopen the straits".

Quote:

There is no need to send an Israeli ship through to get shot at in order to verify a state of war existed.

The war began on June 5 when Israel launched Mirage jet aircraft and virtually destroyed the Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground.

Quote:

With an army on the doorstep, and an illegal blockade of shipping, which were both Egyptian choices, Israel not left with any choices but only one course of actions. This is not disputed by anyone except silly revisionts like you.

Yes, only "silly revisionists" like me believe Israel had a choice.

Like Menachem Begin:

"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."

And Avraham Sela, a colleague of Oren's at the Shalem Center:

The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan, and Nasser's defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike.

And Yitzhaq Rabin

"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."

All a bunch of "silly revisionists".

12-11-2006, 10:43 AM	#62 (permalink)
Shek *Military Professional* Moderator Join Date: 02-23-05 Location: Krblachistan Posts: 7,629 Country:	Yirmey, If you want to play the timeline game, then we can discuss Operation Dawn, a planned Egyptian strike using the exact same troop deployments in the Sinai, called off solely because of the Soviets declaring that they wouldn't intervene on behalf of the Egyptians. The Egyptian response - a redeployment of their forces from the Sinai? Nope. They maintained the same number of troops on the Sinai. So, the number of troops in the Sinai on May 20 constituted an offensive strike force capability. The person who ordered the implementation of Operation Dawn? One 'Amer, who looks an awful lot like your 'Amer that declared that the deployment was solely for defensive purposes. Oops. Given the irrationality of Egyptian actions and the lukewarm US support of Israel in the bigger Cold War chess match, the Egyptian de facto declaration of war by closing off an international body of water to Israeli shipping, the eviction of the UNEF that would keep the peace between Israel and Egypt by the Egyptians, and the strong rhetoric beaming from Radio Cairo, jus ad bellum existed for Israel. __________________ "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

12-12-2006, 03:00 AM	#70 (permalink)
Yirmeyahu Banished Regular Join Date: 11-27-06 Posts: 80 Country:	shek, The closing of the Straits of Tiran was not an "internationally recognized casus belli". Egypt, as I've observed, never signed the treaty you refer to. Incidentally, I would agree with you that Egypt's interpretation was incorrect, and that the blockade constituted a violation of international law. However, it did not constitute a "casus belli". The interpretation that the blockade was "an act of war" is your own, and not the internationally recognized one.