 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Edan
Outside of the acts of war (eg, blockading an international waterway), the evidence suggests that they were. |
The Straights of Tiran are only "international waters" because Egypt was invaded in '56 and forced at gunpoint to recognize them as such, despite the fact that entrence to those waters lie entirely within Egypt's territory, thus making them not international waters. Egypt was entirely within its rights as a sovreign nation to close it's territorial waters to anyone it wants. They are no more international waters than is the Suez Canal.
The eveidence only suggests that Egypt was preparing to attack Israel if you refuse to look past the surface. This is always a stupid thing to do in international politics. Nasser had just lost a war in Yemen. Given the asswhooping Israel had handed Egypt 11 years earlier, Nasser had no expectation of being able to seriosly take on Israel.
Unless you believe Nasser was stupid, which is only possible if you look at the '67 war, and nothing else in his period of leadership, you'd have to believe he had gone temporarily mad, but moving his forces to the border, lining them up all pretty, and then sitting there for two weeks without being on high alert. Sneak attacks don't announce themselves.
Someone planning on invading another country does't tell the U.N. to move to the other side of the border, which is what Egypt did. They said that if Israel wanted to have the U.N. there, they could host them instead of the Egyptians. After all, Israel was the agressor against Egypt in '56, which should Egypt be the country that is occupied by the U.N. If the Israelis had accepted that, it would have put a major crimp in the plans to then invade.
No, Egypt was making a declaration to Israel that it intended to fullfil it's allaince with Syria should Israel invade Syria, which it was planning to do.
quote:
And, of course, in the case of Jordan, they did attack. |
Jordan, Syria, and Egypt had a defensive alliance. Just as our allies in NATO considered the 9/11 attacks to be an attack upon them, the Israeli invasion of Egypt was an attack upon Jordan. Jordan was defending it's ally, as it was required to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Az
a) It's Eilat.
b) It's not so much a declaration of war, but a very legitimate reason to go to war. |
Yup. Especially since not attacking would have meant economic suicide to not attack and have had to deal with a closed Eilat and the cost of keeping reserves ready to defend itself in the event of an attack.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DerSchwarzfalke
|
|
*cough* Geography point. The Straits of Tiran lie between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, with Egypt controlling a small island between the two landmasses in addition. Such sticky waterways in which the twelve mile rule for international waters do not apply tend to be international waterways.
It is different from, say, the Suez Canal, an artificial body for one and Egyptian top to bottom throughout. Egypt can legitimately say "No Israelis Club" and cause no problems. When Egypt tries to close the Straits of Tiran, however, against Israeli shipping, that is the declaration of a blockade -- long recognized under international law as a de facto declaration of war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DerSchwarzfalke
|
|
No, because Egypt from Shaikh al-Arab could have easily bombarded any Israeli ship passing through the narrows. I do not know the exact dimensions of the straits -- twelve kilometers, I think, but please correct me -- but the size is small enough that artillery bombardment could have hit any Israeli ship going through.
You miss the point anyway. There is not "Saudi Arabian waters" there, because it is an international waterway. Egypt cannot legitimately "close" it without declaring a blockade and declaring war. A blockade isn't "economic hardship;" it is a blockade. A blockade being a recognized act of war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke
You miss the point anyway. |
No, I don't miss the point. Egypt, at gun point, was forced to open its territorial waters to Israel and call them international waters. It was not international waters until 1956. It's only international waters because Egypt was invaded and defeated by Israel, Britain, and France.
Once you can undertand that relatively simple fact, then you can say, hmmm, Egypt was entirely within its rights to close its waters to Israel. Saudi waters were also closed to Israel, meaning, Israel was gonna have to go around Africa for its oil.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:34
|
|
There's something wrong with the title of this thread. Several things, actually. The Israeli peace process has always been over. It has been in a constant state of perpetual failure; that it failed again is not news worthy of recognition. If the Washington Post issued tommorrow's paper with the headline "No Jews, Arabs murdered in last two weeks," THAT would be news. As it is, nah.
This also cannot be the fault of THE Palestinians. It appears to have been the fault of an irrational angry mob composed of a modest number of Palestinians. While, for all I know, some bozo in their hierarchy encouraged the action, there's no evidence that this was a planned attack. It's just a textbook case of ethnic hatred flaring up, though not surprisingly so given the circumstances.
As for choosing the temple's location in a different spot, I believe that exact spot has deep spiritual significance for both faiths due to events they never planned; that spot is the original site of the ancient Temple built by Solomon, and the point from which Muhammed is said to have ascended into heaven. I think. Whatever the exact reason is, I know it's "holy ground" due to historical factors. You might as well suggest that we commemorate another "Historic Battlefield at Gettysburg" so somebody can build a strip mall on the real estate it occupies now. Absurd. If you want to write anti-religious screed it can be done elsewhere, this thread is obnoxious enough as it is with the arguments over which of two groups is evil based on inherited guilt.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2005 19:31
|