Totally Different

[babylonsister]

I don't know where the heck to put this. Is it allowed here? I'm really confused about what's 'acceptable'.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/totally-different-by-digby-jonathan.html

Totally Different

by digby


Jonathan Schwarz takes a trip down Israel's Memory Lane and finds something interesting:

The funny thing about the Israeli attack on Gaza following its long blockade is that Israel's original justification for taking over Gaza in 1967 was that Israel was being subject to a blockade. This is from the official Knesset history of the Six Day War:

Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser blockaded the Straits of Tiran on May 21st and 22nd to all shipping from and to Eilat; the area was open to Israeli ships under UN supervision since 1957, and Israel repeatedly stated that such a blockade will be considered as casus belli (justification for acts of war).

Ooops.

Jonathan also does a search and finds that nobody in journalism seems to drawn attention to this obvious parallel in all the talk about blockade and retaliation.

How odd.

[The Magistrate]

1. He Makes an Excellent, Point, Ma'am

Blockade is classic causus belli, with which no quarrel is sustainable.

It is minimized somewhat to me, since it is my view that the peoples of Israel and Arab Palestine are in a continuous war with one another that has lasted many decades, and so there is no particular question about whether 'cause' has been given for some particular new outbreak or not. For me, the question concerning any fresh outbreak is never 'does this or the other party have the right to do this?' but rather, 'is this the right thing for that party to do?' and 'is this action reasonably in line with the rules of war?'

[oberliner]

2. And what do you find to be the answers to those questions in this situation? nt

[The Magistrate]

3. Both Sides Are Behaving Foolishly, Sir

Israel's actions are pressing the bounds of legality; the provocations of Hamas were clearly illegal.

[peacebird]

4. interesting... but obviously Israel is always on the side of purity, justice and honor

:sarcasm:

[bemildred]

5. I don't think Israel has a problem with it.

It considers that it is at war, so it considers that it can commit acts of war. Committing acts of war is only a problem if you are claiming you are not at war. You can even still say you don't want war while committing acts of war.

The blockade is definitely an act of war, esp. since Israel claims to not be occupying Gaza, but I think Israel is comfortable with being at war with Gaza. Egypt is in a slightly different position, since it doesn't want to be at war with Gaza, yet it still cooperates with the blockade. But such dissembling of ones true intent is the bread and butter of international politics.

Not that I approve, but I don't think this argument can go anywhere.

[azurnoir]

6. I have pointed that out on a few occasions here

and have been told things that vary from Israel is at war with Gaza to so what Israel war with Gaza however has never been formally declared as that would be a recognition of sorts of Hamas, there by exempting supposedly Israel from any Geneva convention rules regarding civilians/