I didn’t say it didn’t consider it a justification for war, I said that it didn’t support the seizure of sovereign territory in response to such an act. There are exceptions, but in general a country’s sovereignty is sacrosanct to the UN, and protected in its Charter.
Ah, okay. Gotcha - sorry, I misunderstood.
Did Egypt actually blockade the port, or just prevent Israel from using the Suez?
Because it doesn’t work that way.
-
The Arab oil states are unstable politically. You can’t expect lasting alliances or even protection of your trade interests if the governments are always under threat of collapse. This is true even for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
-
We need them, they don’t need us. They don’t require American goods or money, but the US requires their oil. Despite American military and economic strength, it’s impossible to maintain equal relations with someone who you need, but they don’t need you. We’d end up blackmailed with oil prices and supplies (far worse than OPEC), up to the point where we’d have to flex military might. However, as Iraq has proven, it’s hard to subdue a population, particularly one not advanced enough to be reliant on infrastructure, and even more so if you’re unwilling to do the brutal things to intimidate them.
-
A military “solution” was completely out of the question given the Soviet Union’s proximity during the Cold War. The US was committed to Israel by default, and this was only re-affirmed by the Suez crisis.
-
Israel is not simply a forward base. An aircraft carrier is a forward base. Israel is a friendly, established population that counts in the millions, not merely a base but a nation that can be used in a direct war, or simply as proxies - Hey Arabs! You behave now or we’ll sic those Israelis on you, and you know we’ve armed them well. Israel fight a prolonged war in the region at far less expense than the US, and they can conquer, the US can’t. Israel would be far more likely to march a few million people to Kuwait and the Persian coast of Saudi, displacing the local population and creating an Israeli colony.
-
As such, Israel is a real, permanent threat. They’re the big stick that Teddy Roosevelt spoke of.
-
David Oren’s Six Days of War is the essential history of the conflict, distilled from extensive interviews with figures from all sides of the war, by a historian versed in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. Check it out.
-
Nasser’s blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba was an act of war under any interpretation of international law. A state of war, by legal definition, allows a belligerent to pursue the destruction of its enemy’s armed forces. Egypt’s armed forces were in the Sinai – deployed in accordance with the invasion plan known as “The Dawn,” Gen. Abdul Hakim Amr’s plan to sever Israel in half in a lightning invasion. Israel responded to the blockade (and, it goes without saying, the Egyptian buildup) by pre-empting “The Dawn” with a campaign aimed quite legally at the destruction of Egypt’s armed forces in the field.
-
The Sinai, as has already helpfully been pointed out, was then returned to Egypt upon conclusion of a peace treaty ending the state of war between Israel and Egypt.
-
To your analogy about Reykjavik, Mr. Partlett – you’re going to have to do a bit better than that. Iceland did not pose an existential threat to England. Egypt very much did pose an existential threat to Israel in 1967. (Moreover, Nasser was routinely announcing his intention to end the existence of Israel – behavior never exhibited toward England by Iceland, nor the ruling junta of 1983-era Argentina, for that matter.)
Iraq has shown that we’re NOT willing to do brutal things to intimidate a population? Things like torture people picked up in random sweeps? Things like encircle a village in barbed wire and shoot anyone who walks near? That’s really what it’s shown us?
We need them, they don’t need us. They don’t require American goods or money, but the US requires their oil.
What are they going to do, drink the oil?
Sell it.
The US isn’t the only country in the world that requires oil, you know.
Plus, they can desalinate ocean water if they really need to. The water tastes like crap, and it’s expensive, but that is an option.
Iraq has shown that we’re NOT willing to do brutal things to intimidate a population? Things like torture people picked up in random sweeps? Things like encircle a village in barbed wire and shoot anyone who walks near? That’s really what it’s shown us?[/quote]
Do you really believe that’s brutal? They’re imprisoning a hostile population. It’s a mere exercise in military policing. The enforcement is brutal, but they’re not starving the population out or forcing them to behave poorly.
Brutal is what has happened historically to people who defy the great empire that has conquered them. Forget your Hollywood films and the “lessons” they teach about “evil” empires that are too cruel to minorities. Brutality works. As long as you have the force of numbers to oppress a culture, to terrify it into submission and begin assimilation, brutality is extremely effective. In fact, it’s better at empire building than co-operation and co-existence. Russia has lasted longer than Austria, Turkey, or the British Empire have. The states that left the former Soviet Union are still for the most part closely in the Russian orbit. Poland is as far East as the EU is willing to reach, anything else will entail conflict with Russia - I’d bet my life on it. And the Russians didn’t build their empire through weddings and concessions and being nice. They conquered and oppressed and destroyed cultures.
Rome lasted for so long because they Romanized populations. Partly through colonization, partly through incentives and in a great deal thanks to their undisputed military might and ruthlessness. Ask any historian just what, exactly, all those rebellions the Jews started got them - nothing but more suffering and punishment. Any culture, given enough time and pressure, will be broken and eventually assimilated.
Of course, it’s a lot harder to do so now. Hitler was the last to attempt that on any grand scale, and the consequences are visible to all.
You’ll have to show me in the UN charter where a country’s territory remains sacrosanct when it engages in aggressive warfare. By your logic, the Allies were in the wrong when they crossed the Rhine in World War II.
Jason, Egypt had previously nationalized the Suez Canal and denied its use to Israel, shutting off Israel’s Mediterranean ports, like Haifa, from access to the Red Sea and, hence, the Indian Ocean. The port of Eilat lies at the northern tip of the Gulf of Aquaba, which runs down the eastern side of the Sinai Peninsula into the Red Sea.
Tim is technically correct in stating that Egypt blockaded the straits at the southern tip of the Gulf of Aquaba (between the southern tip of the Sinai and Saudi Arabia), but, of course, that argument is disingenuous. The purpose of setting up the blockade there was to deny Eilat access to the sea. It’s like saying that in the American Civil War, the Union blockaded Mobile Bay, but not the Confederacy, or that in World War I, the Royal Navy blockaded the North Sea, but not Germany.
Ah, ok. I couldn’t quite tell from the phrasing; yeah, they had no right to shut down the straits.
- Israel gets a bazillion military dollars a year from us, because we need an ally in the region for oil purposes.
- However, they actually use this money to shoot Palestinians civilians.
What about Egypt? They get just as much, and yet they still treat palestinians as third class citizens…
And then there’s the Issue of Syria, who has killed more Palestinians in a week than Israel has killed in 20 years.
But that doesn’t feed the propeganda…
When discussing the rightfulness of Israel’s actions, I don’t know how pointing at Syria for having done worse things could be any help.
Or do you think anyone here holds Syria in greater favor than Israel?
Yes, saying “but someone else is worse than us/them”, is not exactly a defense that holds up to any kind of ethical scrutiny. By that logic you could say, for example, “they killed 7 million, and we only killed 6,999,999, so we’re better than they are”.
There’s an interesting Norman Finkelstein review of Michael Oren’s book on the USS Liberty Memorial site, you know the American ship the Israelis sunk in 1967. Michael Oren is an American-Israeli who served in the IDF.
“Oren’s account of events attendant on the June war frequently descends to vulgar propaganda.”
Nasser’s blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba was an act of war under any interpretation of international law.
Many things are considered as “acts of war” by many people, but there is nothing specific in the UN Charter that states that blockades are an official act of war. Wars have started over bombing raids, like Israel’s recent attack upon Syria, or assassinations, like Mossad’s mistaken assassination of the Algerian waiter Ahmad Boushiki in Norway. Blockades are a bit further down the list than these causes, although some claim that America’s economic blockade of Japan made the attack on Pearl Harbour justifiable. I don’t agree and, like the UN, believe that all possible sources for securing peace must be followed before a pre-emptive attack can even be contemplated. Invading three nations, and holding the land occupied by several million people for over a quarter of a century is a totally disproportionate response to a mere blockade.
- To your analogy about Reykjavik, Mr. Partlett – you’re going to have to do a bit better than that. Iceland did not pose an existential threat to England. Egypt very much did pose an existential threat to Israel in 1967. (Moreover, Nasser was routinely announcing his intention to end the existence of Israel – behavior never exhibited toward England by Iceland, nor the ruling junta of 1983-era Argentina, for that matter.)
No doubt Nasser was beligerent, and you are correct that Iceland never posed a threat, but that wasn’t the point I was addressing. Considering that Egypt only sent two divisions to the Israeli border, it is unlikely that they would be able to pull off a “lightning invasion”. I imagine you culled that colourful description from Moren’s novel on the subject. This attitude is also backed up by Yitshak Rabin, whom I quoted earlier in the discussion.
“I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.” – Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, February 28, 1968
International law only supports pre-emptive attacks in very special circumstances, when all other avenues for peace have been exhausted, and when the threat of invasion is imminent and unavoidable. Being as the Arab forces were caught off guard, allowing for an swift victory by Israeli forces, because they were waiting on a peace initiative started by the Israeli government, and that even the Israelis admit that the Egyptians didn’t appear to be planning an invasion, it seems that the international law does not back a pre-emptive strike in this instance.
I said “in general”. Though the UN wasn’t established when the Allies crossed the Rhine, I would expect them to support an invasion of another country if it was absolutely necessary to ensure peace, as long as sovereignty would be restored as soon as possible. I can hardly think of an invasion that the UN has supported, but plenty that it has condemned, and I cannot think of a single pre-emptive invasion that it has endorsed. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Tim is technically correct in stating that Egypt blockaded the straits at the southern tip of the Gulf of Aquaba (between the southern tip of the Sinai and Saudi Arabia), but, of course, that argument is disingenuous. The purpose of setting up the blockade there was to deny Eilat access to the sea. It’s like saying that in the American Civil War, the Union blockaded Mobile Bay, but not the Confederacy, or that in World War I, the Royal Navy blockaded the North Sea, but not Germany.
The argument wasn’t disingenuous, as I wasn’t attempting to show that the effects of the blockade were any different to one where ships were surrounding another’s port. Instead, I was debating the point raised whereby you claimed a blockade is a violation of sovereign territory. If the Egyptians were blockading the Israelis from a distance of several hundred kilometers from the Israeli port, just off the Egyptian coast, it is hard to argue that they were violating sovereign territory.
We don’t give Syria lots of money.
As to Egypt, that’s hush money to stop them from attacking Israel, right?
So, like, Germany was restored in 1989 or so. Is that soon enough?