Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 69

Thread: Deceptive progress with new proposals

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Yep, my former state is one of those. Please do not re-animate her!

    However, the right to live in peace means noone will attack them from outside, and that's about all Israel needs, to be left on its own.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  2. #17
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Yep, my former state is one of those. Please do not re-animate her!
    Noted

    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    However, the right to live in peace means noone will attack them from outside, and that's about all Israel needs, to be left on its own.
    I agree entirely. Unfortunately, expansionism and security are mutually exclusive, and back in the 70s, Israel chose expansionism. Take the Arab peace plan for example, offers not just recognition of Israel, but full and normal relations with Israel, it even steers away from the "right of return" towards the language of a "just settlement of the refugee question", supported by the Palestinians and the Arab League, rejected by Israel.

    I have a lot of Israeli friends, and I'll be very happy for them if we reach a peaceful settlement.

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    Noted


    I agree entirely. Unfortunately, expansionism and security are mutually exclusive, and back in the 70s, Israel chose expansionism. Take the Arab peace plan for example, offers not just recognition of Israel, but full and normal relations with Israel, it even steers away from the "right of return" towards the language of a "just settlement of the refugee question", supported by the Palestinians and the Arab League, rejected by Israel.
    How you choose expansionism when you are under attack?
    It's not like Israel attacked some of the neighbors in order to expand the borders.

    I have a lot of Israeli friends, and I'll be very happy for them if we reach a peaceful settlement.
    I have few Jew friends (unfortunately, the Germans and the Bulgarians deported vast majority of those who lived here) and few Palestinian friends(from the former state, they were coming to study over here).
    They go along well with each other over here. It's bad when they go home
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  4. #19
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    How you choose expansionism when you are under attack?
    Israel wasn't under attack in '67. No one was forcing Israel to refuse to return the Sinai back to Egypt, which led Egypt to attempt to do so by force in '73. No one is forcing Israel to steal Palestinian land. No one is forcing Israel to block Palestinian rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    It's not like Israel attacked some of the neighbors in order to expand the borders.
    Yet they attack, and their borders expand.

  5. #20
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070
    Israel was under attack in '67. The closing of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping was a Cassus Belli and the Egyptians knew that. Operation Moked, the surprise attack on Egyptian airfields was in response to the closing of the Straits. Syria and Jordan were not attacked first by Israel, rather Israel retaliated after initial attacks by Syria and Jordan. Israel even specifically requested from Jordan to stay out of it, yet Jordan decided to join the fracas anyway.

    Israel did not attack at all, let alone to expand her borders, Israel defended herself and then went on the counteroffensive and happened to expand her borders while handing out all kinds of ass-whupping.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  6. #21
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Do you know why Nasser closed the Straits?

    Did you know that Israel made virtually no use of the Straits apart from the transport of oil, of which Israel had significant stockpiles?

    Did you know that Nasser didn't enforce the blockade, and ships were merrily chugging up and down the Straits within days of his announcement?

    Israel did not attack at all
    A statement that wouldn't withstand even a cursory review of historical literature. Israeli analysts disagree with you (e.g. Zeev Maoz). Even the Israeli leadership disagree with you (e.g. Begin).

  7. #22
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070
    Do you know why Nasser closed the Straits?
    Yes, because Egypt stuck it's nose in where it didn't belong. The USSR fed Syria false information that Israel was massing troops on the Syrian border to overthrow the Syrian government if the Palestinian cross border raids didn't stop. The USSR then gave Egypt the same false information and Egypt decided to butt in.

    Did you know that Israel made virtually no use of the Straits apart from the transport of oil, of which Israel had significant stockpiles?
    So what? Abba Eban on the topic: "From May the 24th onward, the question who started the war or who fired the first shot became momentously irrelevant. There is no difference in civil law between murdering a man by slow strangulation or killing him by a shot in the head... From the moment at which the blockade was posed, active hostilities had commenced, and Israel owed Egypt nothing of her Charter rights."

    Did you know that Nasser didn't enforce the blockade, and ships were merrily chugging up and down the Straits within days of his announcement?
    First I've ever heard that. Where's your citation?

    A statement that wouldn't withstand even a cursory review of historical literature. Israeli analysts disagree with you (e.g. Zeev Maoz). Even the Israeli leadership disagree with you (e.g. Begin).
    Simple logic: The Straits of Tiran were the opening shot of the war, something that Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, the US, the USSR, the Arab League and the UN all knew. Operation Moked was the second act of the war, by logical definition a counteroffensive, in that it was an offensive response to the enemy offensive. The pattern then continues. Syrian airfields were not attacked until Syrians first attacked Israeli forces, and the same thing with Jordan, and the same thing with Iraq.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    Israel wasn't under attack in '67. No one was forcing Israel to refuse to return the Sinai back to Egypt, which led Egypt to attempt to do so by force in '73. No one is forcing Israel to steal Palestinian land. No one is forcing Israel to block Palestinian rights.
    OK, here we go...

    How they lost the land? Oh they attacked Israel and lost it

    Yet they attack, and their borders expand.
    By the same logic. Germany didn't attack USA, but still USA went to that war. Was that expansionism?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  9. #24
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Germany didn't attack USA, but still USA went to that war. Was that expansionism?
    I'll need to check with Google maps, but I'm pretty sure Germany didn't become part of the USA.

  10. #25
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by bigross86 View Post
    Yes, because Egypt stuck it's nose in where it didn't belong. The USSR fed Syria false information that Israel was massing troops on the Syrian border to overthrow the Syrian government if the Palestinian cross border raids didn't stop. The USSR then gave Egypt the same false information and Egypt decided to butt in.
    Egypt had a mutual defence pact with Syria. With Israeli strikes on Syria and open threats of larger attacks on Damascus are you surprised Nasser was a bit upset?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigross86 View Post
    First I've ever heard that. Where's your citation?
    Eban's statements about being "strangled" and being forced to "breathe with a single lung" were blatant nonsense. The blockade barred only Israeli flagged vessels, and non-Israeli vessels carrying strategic cargo. According to the UN Secretariat, not a single Israeli flagged vessel had used the port of Eilat in the previous two and a half years. Just 5% of Israel's trade passed through Eilat, and the only significant commodity going via the port was oil from Iran, which could easily have been redirected through Haifa.

    If you want a citation for the blockade not being enforced for more than two days, look at General Rikhye, Arab Report and Record, p.78. Or Dishon, Middle East Record, 1967, p.202.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigross86 View Post
    Simple logic: The Straits of Tiran were the opening shot of the war, something that Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, the US, the USSR, the Arab League and the UN all knew. Operation Moked was the second act of the war, by logical definition a counteroffensive, in that it was an offensive response to the enemy offensive. The pattern then continues. Syrian airfields were not attacked until Syrians first attacked Israeli forces, and the same thing with Jordan, and the same thing with Iraq.
    With respect, that's absolute hogwash. The UN Secretary General's own view was that, and I quote, "a legal controversy exists as to the extent of the right of innocent passage through these waters". In spite of an Israeli request in 1956, the International Law Commission found no rule which would govern the Strait of Tiran. Note also that we're talking about the right of innocent passage. Given that Israel was launching raids on and threatening Syria (a country with which Egypt had a mutual defence pact), was Egypt really obligated under international law to allow Israel to bring in strategic supplies?

    There was a 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea which did give the right of innocent passage through such straits, but the UAR had not signed it. Even if they had, right of innocent passage does not mean right of free passage for any cargo at any time. To quote said convention: "Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state."

    So to argue that closing the Straits for two days to Israeli shipping was a casus belli, you would need to show that a right to peaceful passage existed through the Straits (explaining why the International Law Commission was wrong) and why Egypt was compelled to allow Israel to use the Straits to supply a state which was engaged in hostilities with an ally.
    Last edited by Dubitante; 13 Jul 11, at 00:48.

  11. #26
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    14,070
    Egypt had a mutual defence pact with Syria. With Israeli strikes on Syria and open threats larger attacks on Damascus are you surprised Nasser was a bit upset?
    The USSR supplied Syria, and then Egypt with false information. The only attacks into Syria were in response to Syrian attacks. The two months before the Six Day War were full of hostilities, all of which Syria started. Even Rabin's plan for a strike into Syria was nixed by Eshkol.

    Eban's statements about being "strangled" and being forced to "breathe with a single lung" were blatant nonsense. The blockade barred only Israeli flagged vessels, and non-Israeli vessels carrying strategic cargo. According to the UN Secretariat, not a single Israeli flagged vessel had used the port of Eilat in the previous two and a half years. Just 5% of Israel's trade passed through Eilat, and the only significant commodity going via the port was oil from Iran, which could easily have been redirected through Haifa.
    And that, my good friend, is an act of war. Regardless of how much cargo passed through, how many ships, how many or few days the blockade lasted, how easy the cargo could be rerouted. That is all irrelevant. The blockade specifically forbade ships flying a nation's flag from passing through international waters and that is an act of war.

    I find it interesting, you seem to have a problem with the Israeli blockade on Gaza (which the Palmer report in its draft release found entirely legal), yet you have no problem with the Egyptian blockade. The Israeli blockade is a perfect excuse for Hamas to launch attacks indiscriminately into civilian territories in Israel, but the Egyptian blockade is not something that justifies a military attack strictly on military targets.

    With respect, that's absolute hogwash. The UN Secretary General's own view was that, and I quote, "a legal controversy exists as to the extent of the right of innocent passage through these waters". In spite of an Israeli request in 1956, the International Law Commission found no rule which would govern the Strait of Tiran. Note also that we're talking about the right of innocent passage. Given that Israel was launching raids on and threatening Syria (a country with which Egypt had a mutual defence pact), was Egypt really obligated under international law to allow Israel to bring in strategic supplies?

    There was a 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea which did give the right of innocent passage through such straits, but the UAR had not signed it. Even if they had, right of innocent passage does not mean right of free passage for any cargo at any time. To quote said convention: "Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state."

    So to argue that closing the Straits for two days to Israeli shipping was a casus belli, you would need to show that a right to peaceful passage existed through the Straits (explaining why the International Law Commission was wrong) and why Egypt was compelled to allow Israel to use the Straits to supply a state which was engaged in hostilities with an ally.
    Like I said above, Israel was not actively engaging Syria, she was responding. Therefore your entire line of thought goes out the window.

    Now only was closing the Straits for two days a Casus Belli, but every single player in the region knew it and moreover, Israel openly announced that closing the Straits would be considered an act of war. It doesn't make a difference if they closed the Straits for two days or two years, the blockade was an act of war.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubitante View Post
    I'll need to check with Google maps, but I'm pretty sure Germany didn't become part of the USA.
    Just google, then google map "Check point Charlie, Berlin."

    It was easier to give up part of Berlin after USSR gave up whole East Germany

    Dubi, please tell me why Palestinians ask for the territories in Israel only.

    I am pretty sure they have (had) lands in Jordan, Syria, even in Egypt
    Last edited by Doktor; 13 Jul 11, at 03:59.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  13. #28
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Back to Israel's expansionism:

    Israel, Egypt and Syria sat and signed peace afterwards. Right?

    Have Egypt or Syria lost THEIR land? Have they asked Israel to bring them back the lost land? If Israel failed to give the lands back and was wrong to occupy the lands, was there a case against Israel in front of UN bodies? Is there a verdict?

    If the answer to any of the above is NO, my question is WHY?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  14. #29
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by bigross86 View Post
    Now only was closing the Straits for two days a Casus Belli, but every single player in the region knew it and moreover, Israel openly announced that closing the Straits would be considered an act of war. It doesn't make a difference if they closed the Straits for two days or two years, the blockade was an act of war.
    The simple fact that you have repeatedly failed to address is that Israel had no established right of passage though the Straits of Tiran. If they had no established right of passage, how would closing the Straits partially for two days be an act of war?

    Israel does not get to decide what is and is not a casus belli. That's not how it works. Provide evidence showing that Israel had a right of passage through the straits and I will look at it. You're big on asking for citations, not so big on providing them.

    So the points you need to address are:

    - Was the International Law Commission wrong in stating that no law gave Israel right of passage? And if so, why?
    - Do you accept that any such right applies only to "innocent" passage? If not, why not?
    - Do you accept that "innocent" passage does not cover such cargo at such a time that may damage the security of the coastal state? If not, why not?

    Please cite accordingly.
    Last edited by Dubitante; 13 Jul 11, at 09:30.

  15. #30
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    25 Jun 11
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Dubi, please tell me why Palestinians ask for the territories in Israel only.
    That's a disappointing and dishonest question. Can you provide evidence that Palestinians want to establish a state on territory which is recognised under international law as Israeli?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Just deceptive not quite illegal
    By Roosveltrepub in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 28 Apr 10,, 02:45
  2. Russia rejects U.S. missile proposals
    By xrough in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14 Nov 08,, 00:51
  3. Are McCain's tax proposals as suspect as Gordon Brown's?
    By Traps in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06 May 08,, 20:24
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25 Apr 07,, 17:59

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •