Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deceptive progress with new proposals

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    But in '67 it was still up in the air. Best man wins.
    Israel and the US claimed that it was, the UNSC affirmed it should be and the peace treaty confirmed it with both nations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    242 asserted it, Peace Treaty Between Israel and Egypt March 26, 1979 confirmed it.
    But in '67 it was still up in the air. Best man wins.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Who is more right
    242 asserted it, Peace Treaty Between Israel and Egypt March 26, 1979 confirmed it.

    Article V
    1.
    Ships of Israel, and cargoes destined for or coming from Israel, shall enjoy the right of free passage through the Suez Canal and its approaches through the Gulf of Suez and the Mediterranean Sea on the basis of the Constantinople Convention of 1888, applying to all nations, Israeli nationals, vessels and cargoes, as well as persons, vessels and cargoes destined for or coming from Israel, shall be accorded non- discriminatory treatment in all matters connected with usage of the canal.
    2.
    The Parties consider the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba to be international waterways open to all nations for unimpeded and non-suspendable freedom of navigation and overflight. The parties will respect each other's right to navigation and overflight for access to either country through the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    The Times leader on May 27 1967 said..

    Law and the Gulf

    Egypt's claim to control shipping passing through the Strait of Tiran touches one of Israel's most sensitive nerves as an established nation state. At the northernmost point of the Gulf of Aqaba is Eilat, Israel's only point of access to the east and thus to her main sources of oil. The gulf itself is bordered by Egyptian territory on the west and Saudi Arabia on the east save for the northern shores, where both Jordan and Israel have access. A hundred miles long, it varies in width from seventeen to twenty miles. The narrow strait of Tiran, further blocked by islands, allows Egypt to control shipping by asserting rights over territorial waters at the entrance to the gulf.

    Such control exerted over the vital lifeline of another state has long been an issue secured by internaitonal law. Its best known and geographically most classic case is the access to the Black Sea through the Dardanelles and the Bosporous. These famous straits fell under sole Turkish control with the capture of Constantinople in 1453, but it was not until 1774, when Catherine the Great brought the northern shores of the Black Sea under Russian rule, that an agreement was reached giving free use of the straits to Russian ships. Thereafter, the debate went on over the conditions of such use, notably in the question of warships. A succession of treaties all through the nineteenth century, coloured by the interests of the major signatories, broadened the principles of free navigation and ended any possibilty that one state should ever be allowed to dominate another purely by such accidents of geography. With the fall of the Ottoman Empire, an international commission took charge, to be followed by the Lausanne Treaty of 1923 and the Montreux Convention of 1936, which still holds.

    The Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba fall precisely into this pattern and call forth the same cause of international freedom in navigation. That this freedom is and should be internationally acknowledged was the purpose of the Convention of the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone reached at Geneva in 1958 after the discussion among all interested powers. One article in that convention declares that there shall be 'no suspension of the innocent passage of foreign ships through the straits which are used for international navigation between one point of the high seas and another point of the high seas or the territorial sea of a soverign state'.

    The Egyptians contest this provision in several ways.
    - Another article in the convention defines innocent passage as 'not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state', which the Egyptians might argue is the case with Israel's traffic up this waterway in strategic goods.
    - Alternatively there is the argument that albeit a participant at Geneva, Egypt has not ratified the agreement.
    - A third argument claims that the gulf itself - given the now accepted limit of twelve miles for territorial waters - falls wholly into this category and cannot be regarded as the high seas for the purpose of the 1958 convention.
    - Finally there is the argument to embrace all others that Egypt is at war with Isreal and is no longer bound by any such agreements over rights of passage.

    Some of these arguments are untenable in law : all of them run against the accepted international principle of rights of access which needs to be upheld whatever other opinions may be held of the crisis. The argument over the gulf as itself territorial waters is not accepted in international law where several littoral states exist - what applies to the Jordanian port of Aqaba must apply equally to its neighbour Eilat. Egypt's claim to be at war runs against the Security council resolution recording the progress of the Isreal-Egypt armstice and establishing its permananence as an end to the war even if no settlement were possible. Egypt is not attempting to to maintain belligerent rights at any other port or in any other way. Finally the case for the agreed convention has the ratification of twenty-two interested countries among them, US, Russia and Britian as well as the force of two centuries of internaitonal evolutoin.

    To allow Egypt's rights in the Tiran strait would depart from the accepted principle. There is not only the example of Turkey and access to the Mediterranean by Russia, Romania and Bulgaria. The Baltic is a sea that could be closed if Sweden and Denmark choose to apply the geographical arguments that Egypt uses at Tiran. In asserting the freedom of navigation of the gulf Israel, and Britain and the US, have the merit of international law behind them.
    The author of the 6 day war by churchill also says this
    It is idle, however to deny that the Egyptians has a strong juridical case in the matter of the Striats of Tiran. it is unfortunate that no impartial international tribunal existed before whom the matter could be settled.

    The Egyptian case was well put by Mr. Talib El-Shibib, the representative of the League of Arab States, in a letter to the The Times on May 29, in which he set out four points which certainly have a plausible ring to them:

    1. The existence of an Israeli coast line on the Gulf of Aqaba is a direct result of an act of force by Israel contrary to the 1947 UN Partition Plan of Palestine. Israel's occupation of the Port of Eilat and that part of the coast line are an example of Israeli military expansionist policy in defiance of the UN rule.

    2. The entrance of the Gulf of Aqaba is less than nine miles wide and its is therefore within the 12 mile limit legally allowed for territorial waters. Due to the state of war between Israel and Egypt the passage of Israeli ships through the Tiran Straits was denied until 1956 on legally accepted grounds. Their passage since 1956 was a result of the Suez aggression against Egypt which was resoundingly condemmed by the UN and whose final traces had to be liquidated. Surely it is not the rule of law to allow an aggressor to retain the fruits of his aggression.

    3. Israel has continuously flouted UN resolutions and hindered UN peacekeeping efforts. It has refused to accept UN troops on its side of the borders in 1957 and had since boycotted the UN mixed armistice commission with the UAR.

    4. The military attacks by Israel against a number of neighbouring countries for which Israel was six times condemmed by the the UNSC are examples of the rule of the jungle Israel pursues. Its claim for sympathy on the basis of legality and international law are manifestations of extreme cynicism.

    Who is more right

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by Dubitante View Post
    Exactly, it was controversial, no clear legal picture existed, precisely why it can't be used as a casus belli.
    It wasn't controversial, it was international waters and 242 ruled so. Trolling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by Dubitante View Post
    Easy tiger, apologies, I thought you were contending that Transjordan was part of Palestine.
    Trolling. 24 hours.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Dubitante View Post
    Exactly, it was controversial, no clear legal picture existed, precisely why it can't be used as a casus belli.
    Of course it can. It is not illegal to demand and to enforce innocent passage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by Dubitante View Post
    If you're trying to make me jealous, it's working.
    Not even on vacation. Yet!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dubitante
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    But also no established denial of innocent passage.
    Exactly, it was controversial, no clear legal picture existed, precisely why it can't be used as a casus belli.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dubitante
    replied
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    I have all the time in the world.
    If you're trying to make me jealous, it's working.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dubitante
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    YOU'VE GOT TO BE SH!TTING ME. Israel was tried and found innocent by 242.
    I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Because the ILC did not find any applicable law, then while it may not be legal, it is clearly NOT ILLEGAL. I think you better get something through your head. LEGAL and NOT ILLEGAL are not the same things. One allows you to do things. The other does not forbid you to do things.
    I think I agree. It had not been established as illegal for the UAR to close the Straits to Israeli shipping, I think that has been my point. They had not found there to be a right of innocent passage.

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The simple fact is that Israel felt there was enough cause to goto war and the ILC clearly states that it is NOT ILLEGAL for Israel to do so.
    Israel's "feelings" don't constitute a casus belli. The ILC does not really concern itself with the laws of war, it was speaking specifically of the right of innocent passage to the Straits. Israel had requested they look at it, the ILC found no law providing this right. In other words, no law preventing the UAR from closing it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by Dubitante View Post
    Happy to, although debunking the Israeli perspective on 242 (which I've done countless times) takes more time than I have right now, so I might make you wait until tonight :)
    It's fine with me. I have all the time in the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dubitante
    replied
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    I never said that, stop lying.
    Easy tiger, apologies, I thought you were contending that Transjordan was part of Palestine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Dubitante View Post
    But concerning ourselves with the state of law as it existed at the time, as articulated by the UN Secretary General, the legal aspects of the case were far from settled. It is clear that there was no established right of innocent passage. An impartial court might have looked at the issue at the time and declared there was a right, but, sadly, that never happened.
    But also no established denial of innocent passage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dubitante
    replied
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    We are not in an argument. At least I am not ;)

    That website has clear Jew pov on the situation. Seemed OK to me. If you have counter arguments you are more then welcome to present them.
    Happy to, although debunking the Israeli perspective on 242 (which I've done countless times) takes more time than I have right now, so I might make you wait until tonight :)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X