ISRAEL, PALESTINE, AND CANADA

normanchateau · November 7, 2006

In my opinion, there is another way. Israel could elect a government more palatable to the left. From 1948 to 1977, Israel was governed by the Labour party or Labour party coalitions. At that point, despite previous wars, Israel was not vilified to the extent that it is today by the left. But when Israel elected Begin and a subsequent string of like-minded right-wingers like Shamir and Sharon, Israel's reputation gradually shifted. Fear contributed to the election of these right-wingers just as it contributed to George Bush's election.

Having a neighbour next door whose elected government claims Israel has no right to exist will not eliminate that fear.

The same Begin as surrendered the Sinai for a piece of paper. And his "partner in peace" was dead within four years.

His "partner in peace" was dead because he was assassinated by a right wing Israeli.

So from your perspective Begin was not sufficiently right wing?

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

WTF?? The sources YOU cited said it will be defined as an act of war in 2009. Note that we have not yet reached 2009.

You know, being a selctive reader does not endear you to the truth......

Current Australia law Blockade (BR 1806)
An operation intended to disrupt the enemy's economyby preventing ships of all nations from entering or leaving specified coastal areas under the occupation and control of the enemy. BLOCKADE IS AN ACT OF WAR and the right to establish it is granted to belligerents under the traditional laws of war. This law requires, inter alia, that the blockade must be effective, that it is to be declared by the belligerent so that all interested parties know of its existence and that it is confined to ports or coasts occupied by the enemy. The expression is used more broadly to mean a combat operation carried out to prevent access to, or departure from the coast or waters of a hostile State.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Blockade

Figleaf · November 7, 2006

Current Australia law Blockade (BR 1806)
An operation intended to disrupt the enemy's economyby preventing ships of all nations from entering or leaving specified coastal areas under the occupation and control of the enemy. BLOCKADE IS AN ACT OF WAR and the right to establish it is granted to belligerents under the traditional laws of war. This law requires, inter alia, that the blockade must be effective, that it is to be declared by the belligerent so that all interested parties know of its existence and that it is confined to ports or coasts occupied by the enemy. The expression is used more broadly to mean a combat operation carried out to prevent access to, or departure from the coast or waters of a hostile State.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Blockade

Can you please tell me how Australian law is relevant to this issue?

(BTW, the "ACT OF WAR" reference doesn't appear in the actual Wikipedia article, probably because fact checkers removed it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade . It's quite curious how it's the only capitalized section in the report you cited as well. Did you do that little edit yourself by any chance?)

Oh, and if it's really an act of war, why does it need to become one in 2009?

Dancer, face it, you're sinking fast.

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

Okay, but there's a rubber traffic pylon outside....how about I practice on that for an hour or two. If I can make it understand the relevancy of the sentence; "BLOCKADE IS AN ACT OF WAR and the right to establish it is granted to belligerents under the traditional laws of war" I may have a slim chance explaining it to you.

Figleaf · November 7, 2006

Okay, but there's a rubber traffic pylon outside....how about I practice on that for an hour or two. If I can make it understand the relevancy of the sentence; "BLOCKADE IS AN ACT OF WAR and the right to establish it is granted to belligerents under the traditional laws of war" I may have a slim chance explaining it to you.

Can you please tell me how Australian law is relevant to this issue?

BTW, the "ACT OF WAR" reference doesn't appear in the actual Wikipedia article, probably because fact checkers removed it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade .

It's quite curious how it's the only capitalized section in the report you cited as well. Did you do that little edit yourself by any chance?

Oh, and if it's really an act of war, why does it need to become one in 2009?

Dancer, face it, you're sinking fast.

Figleaf · November 7, 2006

Here's what the real Wikipedia says about AUSTRALIAN Law of blocade:

Current Australia law
Blockade (BR 1806)

An operation intended to disrupt the enemy's economy by preventing ships of all nations from entering or leaving specified coastal areas under the occupation and control of the enemy. Blockade and the right to establish it is granted to belligerents under the traditional laws of war. This law requires, inter alia, that the blockade must be effective, that it is to be declared by the belligerent so that all interested parties know of its existence and that it is confined to ports or coasts occupied by the enemy. The expression is used more broadly to mean a combat operation carried out to prevent access to, or departure from the coast or waters of a hostile State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

AMAZING how the convenient and oddly capitalized section Dancer wants to rely on is missing from the real version and present in the obscure reference he prefers.

And it still explains nothing of how he thinks Australian law is relevant to this matter.

Well, Dancer, why don't you try an unclever insult to cover your utter incorrectness on this matter?

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

The pylon understood immediately, what a blocade was.

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

The pylon understood immediately, what a blocade was.

Six-Day War
"Casus belli" was also a prominent issue during the Six-Day War of 1967. The Israeli government had a short list of "casus belli" that would trigger military action by Israel in the event that an Arab state took one of the listed actions. The most notable "casus belli" was a blockade of the Straits of Tiran leading into Eilat, Israel's only port leading into the Arabian Sea from which its vessels could reach important markets in East Africa and Southeast Asia. Passage through the straits was important since at the time Egypt was also prohibiting any traffic bound to and from Israel from passing through the Suez Canal. Such a blockade of the straits, in contravention of international law, was undertaken by Egypt following its expulsion of UN peacekeepers from the Sinai Peninsula and the Egyptian military presence in Sharm el-Sheikh (at the southern tip of the Sinai). The blockade was a major factor in the start of Israeli strike against Egypt's airforce only hours before Egypt was to attack [citation needed]. Syria and Jordan both attacked soon after. Israel asked Jordan to end its attack, informing the ambassador it would consider the Jordanian attack to be a "salvo of honor", necessary as an ally to Egypt. Jordan refused, and Israel retaliated, conquering part of Jordan.

A blockade can be considered an act of war or an act
short of war and comes in different forms. It can be

offensive or defensive, near (tactical) or distant

(strategic)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...ort/1995/TC.htm

an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy's coasts.
Blockades are regulated by international customary law and by international treaty law.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015678/blockade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli#Six-Day_War

Game, set match

Figleaf · November 7, 2006

The pylon understood immediately, what a blocade was.

What exactly do you think you're proving with this nonsense? We know what a blockade IS, and your pretending that is the issue does nothing to convince me or anyone else that you know what you're talking about. It seems you're just trying to be annoying.

Yes, sure, that's your stock in trade, but peddle it somewhere else for a while.

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

The pylon understood immediately, what a blocade was.

We know what a blockade IS

...and still unsure of what the topic was he then he grabbed a tissue and declared air victory.......

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

The egyptian blocade of the Red Sea port was an act of war, as defined by acts of war....

What definition?

We know what a blockade IS

........sure you do.......

Figleaf · November 7, 2006

Six-Day War
"Casus belli" was also a prominent issue during the Six-Day War of 1967. The Israeli government had a short list of "casus belli" that would trigger military action by Israel in the event that an Arab state took one of the listed actions. The most notable "casus belli" was a blockade of the Straits of Tiran leading into Eilat, Israel's only port leading into the Arabian Sea from which its vessels could reach important markets in East Africa and Southeast Asia. Passage through the straits was important since at the time Egypt was also prohibiting any traffic bound to and from Israel from passing through the Suez Canal. Such a blockade of the straits, in contravention of international law, was undertaken by Egypt following its expulsion of UN peacekeepers from the Sinai Peninsula and the Egyptian military presence in Sharm el-Sheikh (at the southern tip of the Sinai). The blockade was a major factor in the start of Israeli strike against Egypt's airforce only hours before Egypt was to attack [citation needed]. Syria and Jordan both attacked soon after. Israel asked Jordan to end its attack, informing the ambassador it would consider the Jordanian attack to be a "salvo of honor", necessary as an ally to Egypt. Jordan refused, and Israel retaliated, conquering part of Jordan.

A blockade can be considered an act of war or an act
short of war and comes in different forms. It can be

offensive or defensive, near (tactical) or distant

(strategic)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...ort/1995/TC.htm

an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy's coasts.
Blockades are regulated by international customary law and by international treaty law.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015678/blockade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli#Six-Day_War

Game, set match

What species of incompetence or dishonesty could produce your style of nonsense is a mystery to me.

1. The first quote isn't even from the source you cited. I think its from the Wikipedia cite at the end of your post. The article at globalsecurity.org doesn't even contain the phrase 'casus belli'. Nevertheless, let's deal with what the first quote says:

a-casus belli: "Israeli government had a short list of "casus belli" . That is, the Israeli government declared it would declare war over certain things. This doesn't make those things legitimate causes for war, it just means ISRAEL MADE THREATS about them.

b-"Such a blockade of the straits, in contravention of international law...". FIRST, its an open question whether it would violate international law because Egypt and others consider the straits Egyptian territorial waters. SECOND, not just any violation of international law justifies starting a war. In fact, there are only two legal ways to start a war: self-defence (which doesn't apply because Israel had not been attacked) or security council resolution. That means, Israel's proper remedy to the blockade, if it had one, was to go the the UNSC with their grievance. The did not even attempt that so far as I know.

2. The second quote says a blockade may be considered and act of war. Or maybe not. So, right off, it's only 50% in support of your contention. But look closer ... "considered" by who? An affected state may certainly "consider" it an act of war, but that doesn't make it a legitimate ground to start a war in international law. In fact, there are only two legal ways to start a war: self-defence (which doesn't apply because Israel had not been attacked) or security council resolution.

3. The Britanica article calls it an 'act of war', but doesn't offer a meaning for that term. In the context of all the other material supplied so far, it probably is intended to mean 'something done in war'. It does not amount to a statement that it's a valid reason to go to war.

Furthermore, exerting territorial control of the straight does not match the technical definition of blockading ports and shorelines discussed there. SO, the "blockade" of the straights was not a "blockade" in international law.

Israel started the 1967 war. But why take my word for it? Why not believe the senior Israeli officials who've said as much?

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

I'l say one thing for you, for someone so irrelevent, you are long winded.

1. The first quote isn't even from the source you cited. I think its from the Wikipedia cite at the end of your post. The article at globalsecurity.org doesn't even contain the phrase 'casus belli'. Nevertheless, let's deal with what the first quote says:

Yes the citations were reversed...congratulations

FIRST, its an open question whether it would violate international law because Egypt and others consider the straits Egyptian territorial waters.

With you it seems who relies on every misplace jot and tistle to escape the obvious......for everyone else it was an act of war. You know, the part about we will sink your shipping if it approaches...i guess like the suicide bombers and israeli kids, isreali shipping is fair game in your books too....

SECOND, not just any violation of international law justifies starting a war. In fact, there are only two legal ways to start a war: self-defence (which doesn't apply because Israel had not been attacked) or security council resolution.

I realize you like the round in circle game but an act of war is tantamount of an attack. Even the pylon understood this....but anyway,I will give you that you are inavertantly correct, Egypt's act of war was illegal.

Israel started the 1967 war. But why take my word for it? Why not believe the senior Israeli officials who've said as much?

Oh I believe them, I also believe you don't have the intellectual where withall to understand the context of the quotes...see it requires an understanding of strategic imperitives and survival. Something that you don't allow the jews in any case.

But go ahead, feel free to shame yourself.

Black Dog · November 7, 2006

Casus belli" was also a prominent issue during the Six-Day War of 1967. The Israeli government had a short list of "casus belli" that would trigger military action by Israel in the event that an Arab state took one of the listed actions. The most notable "casus belli" was a blockade of the Straits of Tiran leading into Eilat, Israel's only port leading into the Arabian Sea from which its vessels could reach important markets in East Africa and Southeast Asia. Passage through the straits was important since at the time Egypt was also prohibiting any traffic bound to and from Israel from passing through the Suez Canal. Such a blockade of the straits, in contravention of international law, was undertaken by Egypt following its expulsion of UN peacekeepers from the Sinai Peninsula and the Egyptian military presence in Sharm el-Sheikh (at the southern tip of the Sinai). The blockade was a major factor in the start of Israeli strike against Egypt's airforce only hours before Egypt was to attack [citation needed]. Syria and Jordan both attacked soon after. Israel asked Jordan to end its attack, informing the ambassador it would consider the Jordanian attack to be a "salvo of honor", necessary as an ally to Egypt. Jordan refused, and Israel retaliated, conquering part of Jordan.

As loath as I am to get involved in yet another Israel thread, it should be noted that citing the closure of the Straits of Tiran as a causus belli is disingenous for a number of reasons. First, you have to consider the fact that the only useable part of the straits lay within a mile of the Egyptian coastline and, therefore, was within Egyptian territorial waters (which was Nasser's argument). Second, there's the fact that the blockade, thouigh announced, was never actually imposed, and even if it had, it wouldn't have impacted Israel much at all (only about 5% of Israeli traffic actually passed through the Straits). IOW the closure, though provocative, did not constitute a threat to Israel anymore that Nasser's piddling force in the Suez did.

The real cause of the 1967 war, when you get right down to it, was Israel's ongoing border conflict with Syria. But at no point was Israel in mortal danger from any of its foes.

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

Second, there's the fact that the blockade, thouigh announced, was never actually imposed, and even if it had, it wouldn't have impacted Israel much at all (only about 5% of Israeli traffic actually passed through the Straits).

Say again?

4. Egypt Reimposes a Naval Blockade on the Straits of Tiran, 23 May 1967:
On 23 May 1967, Egypt announced that the Straits of Tiran had been closed and warned Israeli shipping that it would be fired upon if it attempted to break the blockade. The next day, Egypt announced that the Straits had been mined. Text of speech by President Nasser announcing the closure of the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, 23 May 1967:

So inspite of an act of war and the threat of firing upon israeli shipping and mining the passage.....a few merchant sailors dead would have no impact?

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relation...the+Straits.htm

Black Dog · November 7, 2006

So inspite of an act of war and the threat of firing upon israeli shipping and mining the passage.....a few merchant sailors dead would have no impact?

Again: the blockade was anounced, but not imposed. The straits were never mined and just a few days after Nasser announced the blockade, vessels using the Straits apparently weren't even being searched, let alone fired upon.

So yeah, I'll say again: given the paucity of Israeli shipping traversing the Straits in the first place and the lack of action on the part of Egypt to enforce the "blockade", it's difficult to see how it could be interpreted as a threat to Israel. As for whether such a blockade-had one been implemented-would have constituted a causus belli, well, I'd like to see some contemporary citations.

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

[
Again: the blockade was anounced, but not imposed. The straits were never mined and just a few days after Nasser announced the blockade, vessels using the Straits apparently weren't even being searched, let alone fired upon.

Egypt announced that the Straits had been mined

Hindsight may be 20/20.......but when your enemy annpouces they are going to kill you, you better believe them

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

On the morning of May 16, 1967, Egypt's president, Gamal Abdul Nasser, moved on his plan for a military offensive. He sent his tanks forward into the Sinai - Egyptian territory. That same day Nasser surprised the world by asking the United Nations to withdraw its peacekeeping forces from the Sinai, and the UN complied. Four days later, Egypt erected a blockade at the Strait of Tiran, near Sharm al-Sheikh, against Israel's access to shipping in the Red Sea - considered by tradition an act of war. Two days later (May 24) the Egyptians moved 9,000 men, 200 tanks and guns to striking positions, at the edge of the Gaza Strip, near Rafah. Egypt withdrew the families of officers from the Gaza Strip, and it transferred managers, engineers and doctors there in preparation for occupying the Negev region (Beersheba and points south). Egypt was planning to launch its offensive on the 27th. A speech by Nasser to his officers gave his officers confidence in victory.
Israel's military command was alarmed. Waiting while Egypt's strike force was become stronger and stronger and letting Egypt strike first was militarily unsound.

Which is what General Figleaf advocates.....

http://www.fsmitha.com/review/r-oren.html

Black Dog · November 7, 2006

Hindsight may be 20/20.......but when your enemy annpouces they are going to kill you, you better believe them

Uh...right. If anything, Nasser's public bellicosity is a sure sign that he had no intention of attacking Israel. Why would anyone in their right mind broadcast their plans to their enemy? The unvarnished historical record paints a pretty clear picture: Israel was not threatened. If anything, it knew how weak its enemies were and acted to explouit that weakness. And as much as Israel apologists like to portray the Six Day War as yet another struggle for exisetence against an implacable foe (thus fitting it nicely into the national mythos), the facts say otherwise.

Figleaf · November 7, 2006

I'l say one thing for you, for someone so irrelevent, you are long winded.

Gee, I'm really sorry to have refuted you so thoroughly.

Yes the citations were reversed...congratulations

Oh, heck, congratulations to you for buggering it up!

With you it seems who relies on every misplace jot and tistle to escape the obvious......for eveyone else it was an act of war.

Nice 'appeal to the mob' there, but who is this imaginary 'everyone'?

You know, the part about we will sink your shipping if it approaches...i guess like the suicide bombers and israeli kids, isreali shipping is fair game in your books too....

More sleazy attacks, eh, Dancer? Sure sign you're losing the argument. BTW, I'm reporting that false, malicious slur to the admin.

I realize you like the round in circle game but an act of war is tantamount of an attack.

That's not what your own sources say. You should read them.

Egypt's act of war was illegal.

I know this is hard for you to grasp, but simply reciting your mistakes won't make them right.

I already explained that Egypt's blockade was not even illegal, let alone a justification for war. Do you have any actual arguments to make, or can I assume chanting your little mantras is all you've got left now?

...see it requires an understanding of strategic imperitives and survival. Something that you don't allow the jews in any case.

ANOTHER dirty rotten lie, further demonstrating how deeply out of your discussional depth you've gotten.

For the reasons I've stated, which you've done zip to refute, I rest my case: Israel started the 1967 war.

White Doors · November 7, 2006

Hindsight may be 20/20.......but when your enemy annpouces they are going to kill you, you better believe them

Uh...right. If anything, Nasser's public bellicosity is a sure sign that he had no intention of attacking Israel. Why would anyone in their right mind broadcast their plans to their enemy? The unvarnished historical record paints a pretty clear picture: Israel was not threatened. If anything, it knew how weak its enemies were and acted to explouit that weakness. And as much as Israel apologists like to portray the Six Day War as yet another struggle for exisetence against an implacable foe (thus fitting it nicely into the national mythos), the facts say otherwise.

the facts? because they won? How dare the Israeli's win so convincingly!

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

Hindsight may be 20/20.......but when your enemy annpouces they are going to kill you, you better believe them

Uh...right. If anything, Nasser's public bellicosity is a sure sign that he had no intention of attacking Israel.

What kind of logic is that? Does that mean the allies should not or should have believed Hitler when he threatened Poland, Czechoslovakia.........

Why would anyone in their right mind broadcast their plans to their enemy? The unvarnished historical record paints a pretty clear picture: Israel was not threatened. If anything, it knew how weak its enemies were and acted to explouit that weakness. And as much as Israel apologists like to portray the Six Day War as yet another struggle for exisetence against an implacable foe (thus fitting it nicely into the national mythos), the facts say otherwise.

I would love to see these "facts" they must be filtred with chracol indeed

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

yadda yadda yadda

All you have done is to make air claims. Not once have you shown that a blockade isn't an act of war. Instead you have done a fine job apologising for terrorism and aggression.

Bravo Fibleaf!

Black Dog · November 7, 2006

the facts? because they won? How dare the Israeli's win so convincingly!

No the facts that show that Nasser's strength in the Sinai was insufficient to carry out a major offensive. Jordan was so weak that Israel even offered to let them off the hook after destroying their air force. Which left Syria. Indeed, events validated claims by U.S. intelligence that "the IDF would win a war in two weeks even if attacked on three fronts simultaneously - one week if Israel shot first." (Oren)

What kind of logic is that? Does that mean the allies should not or should have believed Hitler when he threatened Poland, Czechoslovakia.........

Sound logic. If you're about to attack an enemy (especially a strong one), you don't go around advertising the fact.

Hitler never announced his plans to invade Poland and went to great lengths to portray it as an act of self-defence. As for Czechoslovakia, Hitler took it beause he knew the Czechs couldn't defeat him and that the Allies would not intervene.

Egypt had no war plans for an attack on israel. Israel, on the other hand, had been spoiling for another go at Nasser since 1956 and the IDF, in the words of Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld, "at the peak of its preparedness," "confident in its power" and "spoiling for a fight and willing to go to considerable lengths to provoke it."