US caretaker to ask President to withdraw.

Read and weep then

[SIZE=+1]Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX).

[/SIZE]Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:


(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,


(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;



(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;



(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;



(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;


(f) The action of a State in allowing its temtory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;


(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.


http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html


I highlighted article (c) for your reading pleasure and to make sure you won't miss it. Will you cease and desist now cause frankly I am getting bored explaining the obvious to you.

 

Strawman.

We were not discussing whether the closure of the Straits was an Aggression. Please focus. Of COURSE it was an aggression. But it was not against the UN Charter / International Law.

But just so that you keep on top of your own posts this time, please look at item a) of your own reference. So next time I say that Israel was guilty of provocations against Syria, I hope that you will be honest enough not to disagree.

[By the way, very few of your links work ... they come out with a wierd double registration of the URL]

 

LOL grasping at straws buddy? Give it up, at this stage it's truly pathetic. The blockade being an aggression is defined alongside invasion (a), bombardment (b), attack by the armed forces (d) etc. They are all acts of aggression, their severity is the same, their repercussions are the same, they are all acts of war.

Chapter 3 actually starts with these words: Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression". The meaning can't be clearer - these are acts of war, casus belli, acts of aggressions...whatever you prefer to call them.


PS one of the definitions of aggression is The action of attacking without provocation, esp. in beginning a quarrel or war: "the dictator resorted to armed aggression". Not that you care about words and their meaning as is clear from your complete disregard of Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of blockade as an act of war.

 

Israeli's hate Obama, because he is a non Jew, but also because he is black.

 

The Third "Casus Belli" - the closure of the Straits of Tiran - Progress to date:

1) Illegality of Nasser’s threat to close the Straits of Tiran – the evidence for
The Zionist claim (and that of Borat) is that the closure of Tiran was against international law. Borat attempted to prove this. He provided a quote from Wiki which went:

Reference 84 led here(click). It was from a statement by Golda Meir, Foreign Minister at the time, to the General Assembly of the UN (Borat was later to deny having quoted Ms Meir). When you inspect it, you will find that Ms Meir did not quote any international law. She quoted General Assembly resolutions, but as we all know, with certain very restricted exceptions, the GA decisions are not law; they are not binding. So the cornerstone of Israel’s “casus belli” falls away (and shows up deceitful referencing and analysis)

2) Illegality of Nasser’s threat to close the Straits of Tiran – the evidence against
After the Suez crisis the USA produced a memorandum in Feb 1957 - Department Announcement, February 17 (aide memoire handed to Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban on February 11, 1957, by Secretary Dulles), DSB, vol. 36, at 392 (March 11, 1957) in which it declared that it was “prepared to exercise the right of free and innocent passage and to join with others to secure general recognition of this right.” But it added that this was its position “in the absence of some overriding decision to the contrary, as by the International Court of Justice.”

So, in the immediate aftermath of Israel’s illegal invasion of Suez, the USA Secretary of State is on record that there was no legal basis for the US position. Note that the legally dubious US position was not that it gave Israel a "casus belli" but that any disturbance of the right to passage would lead to United States actions. Did things change by 1967?

Forum readers, I believe that to be an honest statement. The US “said” its position was that the Straits represented international waters but admitted that in legal terms it could not prove that conclusively.

3) Blockade is an Act of War
At this point Borat changed tack and introduced the concept of ‘blockake’ – distinctly a discussion with the Strawman. Irrespective of all of the foregoing, he claimed that Nasser’s blockade was an act of war and as such Israel was entitled to invade. There are two problems with this, besides that fact that it is a diversionary approach.

3.1) Borat’s proofs started with his quotation of the Declaration of Paris. When it was shown that that declaration was exclusively directed at Privateering and had nothing to do with the situation in 1967, he went into wartime radio silence mode on the topic. He also produced the 1909 Declaration of London concerning the Laws of War. “Law” sounds impressive, and indeed the declaration states that a blockade is an act of war. Once again there is a problem. Borat was shown that the London Declaration was not universally accepted and was therefore not applicable to ‘Tiran’. This time Borat did respond -- legal experts “said” it was an act of war. He repeated this over and over, continually failing to show WHICH law the “legal experts” were quoting. In the end I got bored.

3.2) Article 2.3 and 2.4 of the UN Charter, which state need to settle their disputes by peaceful means, is qualified by Article 51 which gives every country “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary”. Now it is Israel who we usually hear claiming this right regarding 1967. But we have seen that Israel invaded Syria a few weeks before, and was threatening the downfall of the Damascus regime. Under its defence pact with Syria, it was Egypt who was entitled to collective self-defence. Lastly the 1949 Armistice agreement was not a peace agreement. Egypt maintained that Israel’s actions in Syria cause the war to flare up again and that she was entitled to threaten Israel to avoid such a Syrian attack.

3.3) But EVEN IF a blockade were to be an act of war, yet not illegal, and even if Israel was not in violation of the UN Charter, I asked Borat if Nasser’s actions fit the definition of a blockade. More wartime radio silence.

In his 2013 book, John Quigley gathers together all of the evidence on this matter. Israeli UN representative Abba Eban “told” the UN that it was. Borat “says” it was. But was it?

Quigley concludes that the Egyptian restriction constituted, not a blockade, but an “interdiction of contraband”. I asked Borat how many ships were denied access to the Straits of Tiran?” More wartime radio silence from him.

4) Offers to resolve the Legal Dilemma
In discussions with the UN Secretary General, Nasser offered to take the issue of legality to the International Court of Justice. This would have settled this topic of what was or was not allowed. He ordered the searching of ships at ‘Tiran’ to be stopped while this issue, and diplomatic solutions, were given a chance. That was BEFORE Israel attacked. What was Israel’s reaction? Israel rejected the offer [General Indar Jit Rikhye (head of UNEF) in his book "The Sinai Blunder]. so was it Israel or was it Egypt that was trying to seek the peaceful solution? What does that do for Israel’s so-called “casus belli”?

5) Israel’s right to Invade
But EVEN IF we assume that Nasser was in the wrong; that he did not have the right to deny "innocent" passage; and EVEN IF we assume that he had in fact instituted a blockade, and EVEN IF we assume that Israel's adventures in Syria and her threats had not triggered the Defence pact, EVEN IF we assume the closure against international law and was therefore a “casus belli”, did that give Israel the right to invade all of Egypt?
Borat next introduced yet another Strawman - the closure was an "aggression" and hence Israel was entitled to attack. That is like saying that, when someone blocks your way on the sidewalk, hands on hips, and makes derrogatory remarks about you, you are allowed to shoot him. Yes .... I know. What did the USA have to say on this topic?

So there was no attack by Egypt in terms of Article 51 of the UN Charter. There was NOTHING in international law, or even widespread legal debate, which permitted a “preventative” first strike. So what did Israel do? Did she cite off of these points in her favour (refuted though they have been)? Did she wait for diplomatic and UN procedures to run their course? Did she wait for the USA to provide the promised physical support in Tiran? No, Israel attacked first and then lied to the UN and the World that it was Egypt who had launched the war.

What are your conclusions?

 

So you continue to maintain that is someone shows aggression towards you, like shouting at you in the street, then you are allowed to a) rape them, b) shoot them between the eyes, or c) shove them under a passing bus, because they are all forms of aggression?

Put mathematically, the following is a logical fallacy: If A is part of Group X and B is part of Group X, then A = B.

 

Aggression: The action of attacking without provocation, esp. in beginning a quarrel or war: "the dictator resorted to armed aggression".
Synonyms: attack - assault - offensive - raid - offence - offense

And here is your favorite Encyclopedia Britannica: aggression has been defined in international law as any use of armed force in international relations
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/9091/aggression

See dear, aggression is not shouting in the streets, it's the use of armed force,an unprovoked attack...

Yep, I was right, you were grasping at straws. Back to the drawing board you go.

 

Well done Borat ..... MANY THANKS for the confirmation. You made my day!! ....

.... because all you have to do now is to show that Egypt was the first to "use armed force" as you so clearly posted above.

In other words, you have a really painful task ahead of you. You are going to need to prove that Israel lied when she admitted that Egypt had NOT attacked first.
If you cannot then your entire "aggression" issue collapses in a smouldering heap.

If you cannot, you have proved my point that Israel was the warmonger

Off you go; your drawing board is about to go up in flames.

 

Sure, no problem:

AGGRESSION has been defined in international law as any use of armed force in international relations
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...091/aggression


[SIZE=+1]Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX).

[/SIZE]Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:


(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces
(b) Bombardment by the armed forces
(c)The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;
(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces
(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State


So here you have it KK, aggression is defined by International law as "use of armed force", "unprovoked attack" and Blockade is aggression according to the UN.
Do you have any more question, of back to the drawing board you finally go? LOL

 

Sorry, Borat. Your post required the use of armed force which you were meant to demonstrate. You have not shown ANY of the following over the past weeks, but you put the definitions all in one bag and then pretend to pull out a rabbit.

1) You were shown that what Egypt did was not a blockade. You have not refuted any of that evidence. Yet you still insist on telling us what the consequence of blockades are and pretending that it is pertinent --- a very transparent FAILURE!!

2) You then conclude that, because Egypt instituted a blockade (without having proved it), it was an aggression.

3) Based on thos you then make the following logical fallacy:
Blockade = Aggression ; Use of Armed force = Aggression ; therefore Blockade = Use of Armed force

4) You then compound your various errors by concluding therefore Closure = Use of Armed force.

Borat, slow down. It is obvious to all of us that what Nasser did in Tiran did not involve the use of armed force. He inspected ships. In his territorial waters he was fully entitled to do that, especially since (as you have been shown and have not managed to refute), passage at that time was not "innocent".

What an appalling failure.
LOL, Borat, my 10 year old granddaughter could spot your triple schoolboy error.

Your drawing board is ablaze.

 

Actually it's very simple, KK. The term "Aggression" is used in international law to describe unprovoked use of armed forces and Blockade constitutes such aggression according to UN resolution 3314.

AGGRESSION has been defined in international law as any use of armed force in international relations

[SIZE=+1]Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX): (c)The blockade of the ports or coasts by the armed forces of another State
[/SIZE]

 

Just to clarify where your logical mistake is:

Blockade is Aggression (UNGA 3314) and Aggression is unprovoked Use of the Armed Forces (International Law). Blockade is therefore an act of war.

I hope this makes it clear for you and puts this whole matter to rest once and for all.

 

Borat, why did you even bother posting that? You did nothing more other than to repeat yourself almost verbatim.

Obviously the basic-logic discussion in my previous post was not clear to you. So I will have to try to simplify it even further:

Here are the 2 failures of your entire position:

1) This is called the fallacy of collective comparison:

An apple is a fruit. An orange is a fruit. Therefore an apple is an orange. That is nonsense, right, Borat? Now wasn't that easy? [Hint: Fruit was the collective]

Here's another one, a bit more difficult: Love is an emotion. Hate is an emotion. Therefore love is hate. Get the logical fallacy? [Hint Emotion is the collective]

See if you can now spot your fallacy:

Borat: "A blockage is an aggression. An armed attack is an aggression. Therefore a blockade is an armed attack". Get the failure this time? [Hint: The ‘collective’ is Aggression]

2) But your second failure makes even the above redundant. It is because you have STILL NOT, even after your lengthy and single-minded obsession with a "blockade", refuted either of my two legal demonstrations that what Nasser did was NOT a blockade. So your entire discussion about 'blockade' was wasted. I told you so 10 days ago, but you won't listen.

No "causus belli"

Toodle-oo

 

An apple is a fruit. Fruit is food. Therefore apple is food.

Blockade is an aggression. Aggression is the use of armed forces, an act of war. Therefore blockade is an act of war.

Duh, do I have to teach you Logic 101 now? Or perhaps you can grow some common sense on your own?


AGGRESSION has been defined in international law as any use of armed force in international relations

[SIZE=+1]United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX): Aggression: (c)The blockade of the ports or coasts by the armed forces of another State
[/SIZE]

 

The law doesn't agree with you, "...emphasising the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war". UN Resolution 242. http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136

 

Anway, did the caretaker ask the US(Netenyahu) president to withdraw then?

 

Jordan got its land back, every inch of it in fact, when it eventually complied with UN resolution 242 you are quoting. So did Egypt for that matter.

 

Your posts do nothing but show disrespect for reality and truth. Please leave.

- - - Updated - - -

And what of the Occupied Territories? They're called 'occupied' for a reason. Can you think what that might be?

 

.... (continued ....

So, in summary Borat, here is what really happened, stripped of the Apologists Myths and propaganda:

# Rabin was obsessed with the Golan heights. It was part of Eretz Yisrael. It belonged in the grand Zionist plan. So he poked and poked at Syria in the DMZ in violation of existing UN Security Council decisions. The Israelis unceasingly claim that the tension was due to Syria harbouring PLO terrorists who were attacking northern Israel, but IDF data of incidents show that, in perfect agreement with statements by General Dayan and senior officers of the UN observers, the Israeli pokings made up +80% of the incidents along the Syrian border (‘farmers’; ‘tractors’, ‘soldiers guarding agricultural operations’, etc – see Jonsa’s list).

# The aggressions were planned and approved at top level. They were all in flagrant violation of the UN Charter and the Armistice agreement, both being top tier components of international law. There is not doubt as to who the main provocating party was; there was also no doubt about the law. Israel was spoiling for a fight.

# But then on 7th April the IAF displayed the most appalling lack of discipline and, without any authorisation, invaded Syria. The Israeli leadership agreed that this was the start of “the crisis”, and there was no doubt expressed that the 7th April 1967 invasion of Syria triggered the entire saga. With 107 sorties having been flown, 5 Syrian aircraft destroyed, dogfights above Syria’s capital city, it was clearly an act of war. The Israeli newspapers trumpeted it as such.

# Yet Nasser did nothing except to rattle sabres. For this he was severely criticised by Arab countries, given that a collective defence agreement existed between Syria and Egypt. This compounded the Arab displeasure that he had done nothing when Israel had invaded Jordan in November 1966. But when Rabin publically threatened to take down the Damascus regime and when Russia reported that Israel had mobilised reservists and was moving troops to the Syrian border, Nasser was forced to act.

# He triggered the withdrawal of UNEF troops from Sinai. That was his perfect right as we have seen. He moved troops into Sinai. That was also his right. Just like it was Israel’s right, duly exercised by her, to refuse to have UNEF of Israeli soil. Apologists claim that these troop movements were clearly an act of impending invasion. The problem is that Nasser and his cabinet and generals made it abundantly clear that there would be no war unless Israel invaded Syria. The soldiers in Sinai also knew it. The Euro-politicians in the Knesset knew it. The Sabra generals knew it. The Russians knew it. The Americans knew it (and told Israel so). The UN knew it. Everyone knew it …. except the Zionist Apologists and Borat and Jonsa.

# When Rabin threatened to overthrow the Syrian leadership, Nasser had to act. He threatened to close the Straits of Tiran. His actual actions were to inspect the cargo of ships passing through the Straits. He did not blockade either Eilat or the Israeli coast. He did not stop one single ship from passage, even though he was entitled to given that ‘passage’ to Israel with her threats of invasion, was no longer “innocent”. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is totally clear about that. The American leadership understood that: “US Secretary of State Rusk sought the advice of his legal adviser, Leonard Meeker. On May 29, Meeker gave Rusk a confidential memorandum: “Neither the UAR announcement of closing the Strait and Gulf nor mining the Strait would of themselves constitute an armed attack on Israel or on any other State.” As one official put it “Passage not only has to be free, but it also has to be innocent”. Borat remains silent.

# After less than a week Egypt stopped inspecting ships. Nasser had offered to take the issue of the legality of his threat to close the Straits of Tiran to the World Court. Israel refused.

# From negotiations with the Secretary General of the UN, U Thant, Nasser’s actions confirmed his willingness to allow a diplomatic solution to be found.

# And while this was happening, Israel attacked, and immediately lied by accusing Egypt of having fired the first shot.

And the rest is history.

So good forum members, who was the aggressor on all 3 fronts?

 

UN resolution 242 does not ask for unilateral withdrawal. It's called 'land for peace' for a reason. They will get their land back when they do what Egypt and Jordan did, when they comply with UN resolution 242 and negotiate peace and borders in good faith.

 

"...UN Resolution 242..."

Taxcutter says:
When did the UN regain credibility?

 

You will notice that I did not stoop to reply to that .... whatever you might call it.

I was waiting for you to show how facts can draw a characterisation of .... what did you call me and my attempts to seek real historical fact .... nuisance; disingenous (sic); street urchin; moron; false, etc.

And then you threw down the glove to the Forum monitors!!!! They appear to have buckled under your challenge.

I, in turn, am quite pleased with my restraint.

By the way, I notice that you did zip to attempt to kick my derrière. Nice cheerleading

 

Have you read his thread at all? Have you read that Egypt, Syria and Jordan had collective defence agreements? Have you read that Israel invaded Jordan in November 1966 and was roundly criticised by the USA and the UK amongst others? Have you read that Israel invaded Syria in April 1967 as a culmination of months of Israeli provocations? Have you read that Israel invaded Egypt in June 1967, notwithstanding her lies to the world that it was Egypt who struck first?

And you now claim, after all of that, that Jordan was not forced to attack Israel?

You Zionist apologists sure demand special treatment in debating on this forum, don't you?

 

Don't the Apologists claim that it was the UN that gave Israel the right to unilaterally claim independence?

 

Most people don't live in some weird bubble where Nasser did not blockade Israel even though he declared the blockade and the whole world condemned it at the time, where blockade is not an act of war, even though it's been considered as such by all countries on the planet throughout millenniums and being designated as such by the UN, most people don't think that gross repeated violations of armistice agreements by the Arab world should or can be ignored, most people don't think that unprovoked attacks and invasion of Israel by Syria and Jordan on June 5, 1967 should not have been repelled just because they had a defense agreement with Egypt which they chose to have and Egypt chose to go to war with Israel.

You don't actually expect the utter rubbish you've been spewing in this and other threads about UN resolutions being illegal, blockades being legal, Arab violations of armistice agreements being justified, Israel's responses to these violations being unjustified, Arabs bombing and invading Israel to wipe it off the map to be acts of defense, Israel defending its right of free passage in international waters being an aggression....you don't actually expect this absurd nonsense to be taken seriously, do you?

And it was the arab world that ignored UN partition resolution 181 and land for peace resolution 242 and started wars of aggressions to wipe Israel off the map. And it was the IDF that reaffirmed the right of Israel to exist by repelling the invading arab hordes in 1948, 1967, 1973... Without the strength of the Israeli defense forces and the sacrifice of the Israeli people all these UN resolutions wouldn't be worth the paper they are written on.