A question about the Gaza Flotilla

reply to post by backinblack


On Sunday May 14th, Egypt moved it's forces into the Sinai Desert and cut off the Straight of Tiran.

This is the initial act of aggression that resulted in the Six Day War.

So yes, it can be viewed as Egypt starting the war.

Congrats though, for a second there, you got me to doubt what I had been taught in Uni nearly 15 years ago.

Regards, Skellon.

Bit of a feeble excuse given Israel's tendency for blockades..

Did Egypt not have a right to close it's own territory??

reply to post by Skellon


That's funny... I mean the blatan hypocrisy which is coming from the US education system. Do we blame the US for starting a war with Japan when it halted the supply of oil and rubber to the Japanese empire? Most respectable historians noted that this was the cause for Japans attack on Pearl Harbour- in orther words they were essentially forced to attack or risk seeing their empire collapse. Yet even the most revionist historians don't go as far to say that the US started WWII. I thought this was a rather interesting fact.

Secondly: When it comes to war- specifically preemptive war, the line around defensive and offensive military action is really blured. The 6 day war was one that neither that Arab states nor Israel wished for... The debate we should be having is, was the closure of the Straits of Tiran a legitimate casus beli? If so why? If not why?

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


Six reasons actualy:

1. Conspiring with other belligerent countries (in this case, Syria and Jordan) for a coordinated attack
2. Closing Israel’s access to international waterways (the straits of Tiran)
3. Violating the terms of the 1956 armistice by re-militarizing the Sinai
4. Expelling the UN and USA peace-keeping troops form the Sinai
5. perpetrating illegal spy-plane fly-overs to reconnoiter Israeli sensitive areas
6. Massing troops and tanks on Israel’s borders.

more background
www.sixdaywar.co.uk...

reply to post by gravitational


Firstly site the actual laws which constitute these provocations as being a casus beli: The article does not do so, it simply states that is is. If I was in Israel position I would have most likely done the same. A preemptive strike, however I would have limited my response in regards to both Jordan and Syria. I believe I discussed the capture of the Golan Heights with you previously supported by memos and conversations Moshe Dayan, which showed that he had no intention on capturing the Golan Heights until an Egyptian memo was intercepted advising Syria to halt any acts of agression as Israel had already won the war.

However, instead of presenting one sided sources -that state the preemptive strike was legal under international law with little to no explanation and little referencing to actual international law- actually site the actions and the laws which they broke resulting in a casus beli.

You have a tendency to just say things with little evidence and little to no explanation.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


You're a comedian right?
How old are you anyway? I thought I was talking to a grownup person.
Guess I was wrong.

Read here (although I'm sure you already have):

en.wikipedia.org...

and more specific to the six days war:

en.wikipedia.org...-Day_War

reply to post by gravitational

Six reasons actualy:

1. Conspiring with other belligerent countries (in this case, Syria and Jordan) for a coordinated attack
2. Closing Israel’s access to international waterways (the straits of Tiran)
3. Violating the terms of the 1956 armistice by re-militarizing the Sinai
4. Expelling the UN and USA peace-keeping troops form the Sinai
5. perpetrating illegal spy-plane fly-overs to reconnoiter Israeli sensitive areas
6. Massing troops and tanks on Israel’s borders.

D
Funny isn't it, Israel fit ALL 6 of those points with their actions in Palestine right now.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by gravitational


The wikipedia page has a one paragraph reference in regards to a casus beli and the six day war where it states

The Israeli government had a short list of casī bellorum, acts that it would consider provocations justifying armed retaliation.

Call me a comedian (I really don't see you reason for doing so) but I would have to call you stupid if your going to use a wikipedia article that at no point references in its footnotes anything about the six day war and dosen't even explicitly suggest that there was a casus belli (which I'm not even denying there wasn't).

So once again, you have failed to site the international law which concluded this was a legitamte casus belli and you have failed to provide credible references.

The wikipedia (thankfully) states:

the UN Charter prohibits signatory countries from engaging in war except 1) as a means of defending themselves against aggression, or 2) unless the UN as a body has given prior approval to the operation.

Article 51 of the UN Charter (which discusses self-defence) is rather interesting, especially if you look at my initial question "is the closure of the Straits of Tiran a caus belli?". Did the closure of the Straits of Tiran (which Israel used from oil imports) in anyway "attack" Israel. No.
Another interesting thought about the much debated article 51 is a 2004 statement by the UN high level panel in the context of the recent Iraq war. (I am paraphrasing sections to reduce the length of the comment)
"For those impatient with (their conclusion about article 51) the answer must be that, in a world full of percieved potential threats, the risk to the global order an non-intervention on which it continues to be based is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action, as distinct from collectively endorsed action, to be accepted. Allowing one to act is to allow all."

You may ask why I bring forth this quote: The answer is simple, it is essentially aimed that the Bush II doctrine of anticipatory war.

My position on the June-1967 war was that it was a war which neither side wanted and a war which both sides could have done far more to prevent. Israel (in my opinion) had legitamte grounds (the grounds which you fail to provide) to firstly attack Egypt, then Syria and Jordan after they engaged in hostitlies- however I remain by my statement that Iraels response in regards to Syria nad Jordan was overeaching and it should have been far more limited especially in regards to the capture (and later annexation) of the Golan Heights.

It is interesting to see however that even why I agree with you, you still fail to provide credible evidence. Congratulations.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


“I once talked to a brick wall, but all I heard was an echo.”

“Israel (in my opinion) had legitamte grounds (the grounds which you fail to provide) to firstly attack Egypt,”

I gave you 6 Reasons, all considered Casus Beli. I believe the “philosophy” forum is somewhere else.

reply to post by SirMike


Star and flag for you.....

and not only the North Koreans but are'nt 12 million people dying of starvation somewhere at a camp in Africa?

Believe you me, TAKE NOTE EVERYONE WHO READS THIS.....do you see any Gazans dying of starvation? Last time I looked their women were fatter than the most obese nation on earth!

Look look......do the Gazans look miserable? There's even a photo shot of Tony Blair's sister inlaw on her phone telling the world how bad the conditions are in Gaza:

cleveland.indymedia.org...

Here's more on starving Palestinians......high obesity rates 8th in the world and their women rates 3rd in the world. Believe you more, the longer those blockades on Gaza continue, the better off they are! Look closely....believe you me those Palestinian kids eat better than a majority in the Western world!

countercultureconservative.wordpress.com...

reply to post by gravitational


"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Grucho Marx

You gave me 6 grounds for which Israel believes there was a casus belli, not 6 grounds for which the UN charter would constitute it as a "legal" war due to a casus belli.

reply to post by bluemirage5


Once again bluemirage do you even read your sources. The statistics from the WHO on obesity are from 1999-2003. Last time I checked the blockade started in 2007.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


oh, poor Gaza again
www.israellycool.com...

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


And poor Ramallah too
www.virtualjerusalem.com...

From your link..

In Gaza, luxury projects have been built despite the lack of any negotiations between Hamas and Israel. A new luxury mall opened in Gaza City in the summer, and a reporter who visited the region noted a feeling of "absolute prosperity" in some circles despite the poverty elsewhere.

It's the only 5 star hotel..
I guess the politicians and wealthy need somewhere to stay but I doubt the average Palestinian could afford it..

BTW, how many 5 star hotels in Israel??

reply to post by gravitational


You know what funny. You use pro-Israeli websites- such as "israellycool.com"- as a reference, yet if I were to site a website called www.palestineisawsome.com you would immediately discard its use as a source due to its obvious bias. On more then one occasion you have suggested that I should read an impartial source, yet you yourself choose not to. There's something we call people like that here in Australia. Hypocrit.

There's 5 star hotels in Croatia and Serbia. Last time I visited they weren't doing so spectacular themselves. Hey theres a 5 star hotel in Lagos. Does that mean every Nigerian is rich? Look at South Africa and those mansions and awsome hotels they have. I guess there are no poor black people there.

The fact is there will always be elite circles of people, who are living wonderfully, even when there people live in utter poverty. So because there are a few rich people does that mean every Gazan is a millionaire. I thought this websites moto was "deny ignorance" not reverbarate it.

Remember that time that you said I called you a nazi (when I did not):
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

That is definetely true in this case: You say that the Gazan are living far better then most of the world and guess what, ignorant people will believe, because that is such an outlandish lie that they will think "well there must be some truth to that, he can't be making it up". It's funny to see the pro-Israel lobby seems to be using the tactics Hitler did. Irony right?

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

You say that the Gazan are living far better then most of the world

Lying again are you?
Where have I said that?

What I do say is, Gazans could have improved their lives years ago. Instead they chose the path of war and ignorant religious laws.
You know what the difference between us? I have been in Gaza and Israel, many times. You on the other hand need to rely on websites bashing Israel to fortify your bigoted prejudice.
You say there is hunger in Gaza?
Show me the Pictures please.

reply to post by gravitational

You say there is hunger in Gaza?

Lying again?
Where have I said that?

My websites bashing Israel. The funny thing is I rarely cite websites which "bash" Israel, yet you cite websitse which "bash" the Arabs constantly.

Great job adressing the rest of my post, as per usual.

And as for the fact that you have visited Gaza and Israel: Am I suppose to take your word as a fact?

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

And as for the fact that you have visited Gaza and Israel: Am I suppose to take your word as a fact?

You are right. Don't!
Please continue with your name calling, pro Palestinian propaganda and Ilan Pappe.

" I wouldn't go as far as calling you a Nazi”. That was one of your best by far so far.