You posted a request for a list of books on the Arab Israeli conflict in order to become knowledgeable in the sbject matter. No time like the present to begin reading, although, the learning part is not guaranteed.
Arab leaders issuing clear-cut, unambiguous existential threats to Israel, Egypt cutting off the Straits of Tiran, vitally important to Israel's survival, Egypt massing 100,000 troops and thousands of tanks on Israel's border all combined to constitute imminent threat to Israel. No rational person disputes this. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter guaranteeing every state the inherent right of self-defense, Israel acted properly in taking preemptive measures in what became the 1967/Six-Day War.
So what you are saying is that no rational person would deny that Israel was under immediate threat of being attacked in early June 1967.
Egypt's closure of the Tiran Straits, alone, constituted an act of war, justifying an Israeli military response. All else was icing on the cake for an Israeli strike. Case closed.
This means that it is acceptable for you if any nation to attacks Israel, since Israel is blocking Palestinian seas. Thus, anyone who attacks Israel is, according to this view, doing what is just and right. Fact is, however, that a blockade is not necessarily an act of war and that Israel attacked and attempted to annex territory.
No, this means you are totally devoid of an understanding of the subject matter. Egypt's closure of the Tiran Straits was an unprovoked act of war against Israel. Hamas, like Egypt then, has provoked war with Israel, allowing Israel to take defensive measures in order to maximize its national security. Embargoing Gaza is such a measure as Gaza remains a terror base. Until Hamas has renounced terrorism against Israel, Israel can take counter-measures to neutralize the threat. Just as the US has had an embargo on Cuba for over 50 years. Just as the US has had an embargo on Syria. Just as the UN had an embargo on Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Israel has no less right to self-protection. Capice? Good.
Self-defense isn't terrorism. Learn the subject matter before posting your nonsense. Your posts are humiliating.
Every nation practices self-defense. Thus, you are still justifying any self-defensive attack against Israel.
Hey Judge. I think you have a big one on the line here. Is it really true that Israel blocks Palestinian seas? Oh wow, this could be REALLY interesting material!!
Please note! klipkap couldn't answer his Underhanded link Withholding... as described below. My Post #351 AND .... Already defeated throughout the string on it's main point....on 242 Could not answer the following post #352/Coup de Grace EITHER: Yes.. after a week and the fact he MUST have seen them at the Top of a page He posted on.. he had to Swallow his Lies and defeat on the string as well. -
It's unclear to me who posted this crass nonsense but it simply isn't true and the culprit couldn't even come near to proving it, if asked. But he's not going to be. There's enough crass nonsense circulating in this forum already.
Coming from you? You don't even know the simple difference between a binding and non-binding document. LOL Owned.
I've explained it to you often enough, but once more for luck. All UN resolutions are binding in that they represent the majority will of the world community and have a legal basis. Only Chapter VII resolutions are militarily enforceable by the UN executive body . Next time you say ' non-binding ', Edwin, make it clear that you mean ' non-binding ' in their present form. Any resolution can become a Chapter VII resolution as the next phase of its enforcement. So, there is ' morally binding ', according to each State's UN membership pledges, and there is ' do as we say or we're gonna kick your Zionist asses into the Med ' binding. Only Uncle Sam prevents Israel being subject to the latter. Only Uncle Sam.
You explain to me, Nakaba? LOL You don't even now the difference between a binding and non-binding agreement. LOL Thanks for the laugh, though, Nakaba. Wrong, Nakaba. Not all UN resolutions are alike. Only Chapter VII resolutions are enforceable, Nakaba... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_resolution Go back to sleep, Nakaba, and stop trying to misinform everyone.
You'll see, with careful attention, that the operative terms are ' enforcement ' and ' binding force '. As is normal, Edwin, I'm right and you....er.....ain't.
Nakaba, stop attempting to misinform everyone with your amateur legal nonsense. Only Chapter VII UN resolutions are binding and enforceable and UN Res. 242, the topic of this thread, is not a Chapter VII resolution. Thus, 242 is not enforceable and Israel need not move one tiny centimeter.
Resolution 242 reinforces the fact of the inadmissibility of gaining territory by means of war and also calls for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories. In effect, it sets out the law by which Israel must comply. Should Israel continue to ignore Res. 242 than the UN can move that the Resolution be considered under Chapter VII. As a Chapter VI resolution it is simply a matter of time before it is elevated to Chapter VII. Only Uncle Sam prevents it.
TH UN in passing 242, understood the 1967 war was a Defensive, if pre-emptive one and clearly called for an INCOPMPLETE withdrawal, top NEW "secure and recognized boundaries".. recognizing the old borders were not. (and there's a difference between gaining territory in a defensive war) Butr it's all on page one. I defy you to answer the quotes OF the authors explaining Exactly what the meant. Your ability to deny reality is now legend. (the 1948 war was started by the Jews!!! LOL) -
