Obama's Cairo Speech

[Burgold]

If I blockade your harbor and you fire on my blockade in your territorial waters than certainly you can make the claim it's defensive. If the "blockade" is actually in Egyption territorial waters, not Israeli, then I think the defensive claim is less convincing even if the justification remains in tact.

I think at this point both of us probably ought to admit that neither is going to convince the other. I suspect we knew that going in. I certainly can admit that Israel invading was an offensive act, but I truly believe that the actions prior to that were as well. Many wars have been started before the antagonists ever got to the battlefield.

Like I said we denied Japan iron, oil, and rubber pre WWII. Does that mean the Japanese were justified in peril harbor. Certainly in their eyes yes. But it doesn't mean Japan didn't take the offensive.

Ah, but through Japanese eyes we had chosen sides and become a part of the war. Economic warfare can be part of an offensive. So, yes, it is very possible that the Japanese truly believed we enganged in an act of war. Heck, economics was one of the main weapons during the entire Cold War. Further, wasn't the sinking of the "trade ship" Lusitania used as a major pretext to get us into a war?

Now, was Israel's response justified? Was Japan's response justified? That's an entirely different argument than who committed the first act of aggression.

BTW, if Predicto was right. I do apologize. I respect you as a debater and poster even though on this topic we are almost always on different sides. That doesn't mean that I don't think you are frequently wrong or more precisely that your interpretations of history are off... I do, but I do not think you post with malice or with a hope for blood.

[PeterMP]

Good points. However, in 1940 the U.S. blocked shipments of oil to Japan and, as we all know, the Japanese attacked us the following year. So, under your line of reasoning, the U.S. was the aggressor in WWII (at least with respect to Japan).

We didn't actively block shipments of oil to Japan. There was no naval blocked. We refused to see our oil to them, but we were under no obligation to do so under any sort of law.

[PeterMP]

Yes, you could make a case that the US' blockade was an act of agression which helped define for the Japanese whose side the U.S. would be on. I think it also isn't a stretch to imagine it was an act of aggression as FDR was trying for a while to get the U.S. involved in the war.

Okay, again, we didn't blockade Japan pre-WWII. The situation is MAYBE somewhat comparable because we did refuse to sell them stuff, and we were supporting China, which almost certainly influenced their actions (the fact that American airman were flying missions against Japan and Germany in field were both better reasons for either side to declare war on us then any actual blockading we did (technically the airman were on leave and not being paid by the US military, but if you believe you that China while under attack from Japan had money to pay US pilots to come there and fight I have a bridge to sell you)).

But we had the right not sell Japan stuff. Egypt through this whole period was in violation of multiple treaties/international agreements.

[Burgold]

I stand corrected, Peter. Makes my larger point easier.

[JMS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Egyptian_Treaty

For several years, they were essentially in a state of war with the British over control of the Canal which put them in violation of the treaty.

The Anglo Egyptian treaty signed in 1936, wasn't with Nassers government and Nassers government wasn't the ones who violated it in 1951. Rather the Pasha of Egypt violated it, Britain ignored him, and the resulting tension and violence is what brought Nasser to power in 1952, and ended the Pasha's rule in Egypt.

Did the United States honor treaties signed in it's name by Britian before 1776? Did Israel honor treaties signed by Britian on their behalf as part of the Palistinian mandate?

They violated that agreement further by nationalizing the Canal and blocking Israeli related trade.

Again the Anglow Egyption treaty died in 1951 years before Nasser nationalized the canal. When Nasser did nationalize the canal through force of arms, the world supported him, including the United States who threatenned Israel with war if she iddn't withdraw from the Sinai in 1957. (Eisenhower Doctrine Jan of 1957).

You mean like France, Britan, and Israel against Egypt during the 1950's?

Which would be a really devistating point if France, Britian, or Israel had a UN mandate to invade Egypt in 1956. The reality of the situation is they had no mandate. They manufactured their own justification. Conspiring with Israel to threaten the canal, and then Britain and France moved in to secure the canal from Israel / Egyption hostilities. All worked out in advance by the three parties.

I'm not defending the current Israeli government or its general polices. I've already said that I think they should withdraw to their '48 borders, which would bring them into compliance with most if not all UN resolutions.

That would be a tough thing. Currently the Saudi peace plan calls for Israel to return the lands taken in 1967 war in exchange for full Arab recongnition and peace. Saudi Arabia won't negotiate or even attend discussions on their plan howerver which makes it even tougher for Israel to come to the table, which Israel has attempted to do.. ( Discuss the Saudi plan with them.. )..

I'm not sure if a return of all the 67 lands would equate with the 48 boarders or not. I'm thinking it would.

You'll note that I don't have a post in this thread until you started butchering history w/ your comparision of us cutting off shipping to Japan and Egypt abrogating treaties and international agreements.

I don't think you've convinced me I'm the butcher of history. I don't think you've pointed to a single treaty which Nasser's government signed or even violated, and you've totally ignored that the entire world supported Egypt in the 57 war because of the percieved correctness of their position over that of Britain, France, and Israel......

You can't violate an agreement which you never made. And in one of your examples you can't violate an agreement which doesn't even mention your country. Egypt in this case.

But their land grab was fueled by aggressive Egyptian actions (e.g. closing the canal to Israeli related shipping and violating the treaty that I've given you the wiki link to above)

The Sinia canal was closed to Israeli flagged ships from 1948-1975 please explain to me how that justified the 1956 invasion of Egypt?

A land grab is a land grab. An attack is an attack. Doesn't matter if you had good justification or not. Or if it turned out to be good for your country or not. Fact is Israel coveted the land, and the land they coveted did not secure the suez canal ship traffic as you are asserting.

I'm not saying they were right or wrong, or it was a good idea or not. Just that measuring the first "offensive" action isn't simple, and you can't just point blank say this country started the first offensive action.

Sure you can we do all the time. It only get's tricky when it's your side who takes the first offensive act.

Blocking the Strait of Tiran was the breaking point, but clearly other factors, including the continued blocking of shipping from the Suez Canal was involved (and the massing of Egyptian troops on the Israeli border with the appearant preparation for to launch an attack themselves).

In reality we now know Egypt was amassing troops because the soviets had told them Israel was about to attack them. It's also the reason why Egypt asked the UN troops to get out of the way.

If Egypt ONLY had bloced the Straits of Tiran and taken no other aggressive actions toward Israel, do you really believe that Israel would have attacked?

Straits of Tiran was the final straw. It made getting oil from Iran significantly more of a pain in the butt, and besides Israel was very confident they could kick the snott out of Egypt. It's like having a 10lb weakling poke you in the eye, how many times are you going to take it until you kick his butt.

1. Technically, your wrong. We recongized a China and recognized that China as the representative of the entire population of China. We just didn't recognize the people that actually had control of the population.

Egypt recognizes Palistine. So does that make them not recognizing Israel legal in your eyes? Fact is it's not Illegal to not recognize other countries, it's just kind of stupid. It was stupid for us not to recognize China until the Nixon administration in the 1970's. It's silly for the Arabs to not recognize and discuss their problems with Israel from 48 until the 1980's. Some of the Arab countries like Saudi still haven't had talks with Israel to my knowledge.

2. I made a point to distinguish from diplomatically recognizing a country vs. recognizing the right of a country to exist in my post (which you appearantly completely missed). Even when we didn't recognize the mainland China government we did recognize the right for China as a country to exist.

That sounds to me like you are spliting hairs. Fact is we didn't recognize Red China for 35 years. The largest most populous country on earth. It wasn't illegal of us to do so, just not very bright.

3. China wasn't created by the UN so isn't covered in the same sense of Israel by the UN.

Israel wasn't created by the UN either. It was created by force of arms.

Israel’s juridical birth certificate came from a League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922. I think you might be thinking of General Assembly Resolution no. 181 of 1947 (commonly known as the Palestine Partition Plan ) which established two state solution, not a one state solution in what is today Israel.

1. Just because the world disagreed with an action doesn't make it right or wrong. Egypt had abrogated the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty. Nobody disagrees with that. That the world didn't support a Bristish/Israeli/French invasion of Egypt as "punishment" for that doesn't mean they didn't do it.

A treaty the Egyption government in 1956 never signed, agreed to, or negotiated. Which supported a Suez agreement which didn't even list Egypt as one of the concerned parties.

2. More specifically related to this incident, countries were upset because they weren't alerted ahead of time.

Yes, Countries were upset because they saw it as a dangerous return of Imperialism. Most of the world had just emerged from a colonial period and were tasteing freedome for the first time. The saw the British and French acts as an beginning of an attempt to reclaim their posessions to the detriment of the rest of the world. and the hungarian revold played heavily in our position too as you pointed out.

[JMS]

Okay, again, we didn't blockade Japan pre-WWII. The situation is MAYBE somewhat comparable because we did refuse to sell them stuff, and we were supporting China, which almost certainly influenced their actions (the fact that American airman were flying missions against Japan and Germany in field were both better reasons for either side to declare war on us then any actual blockading we did (technically the airman were on leave and not being paid by the US military, but if you believe you that China while under attack from Japan had money to pay US pilots to come there and fight I have a bridge to sell you)).

You are talking about the American Volinter Group ( AVG- Flying Tigers) in China under General Chanault? They were also flying American equipment. Greg "Papy" Boyington wrote a wonderful auto biography detailing that group... highly recommend it.

But we had the right not sell Japan stuff. Egypt through this whole period was in violation of multiple treaties/international agreements.

TWO TREATIES! The Anglo Egyption Treaty of 1936 and the Constantinople Convention of the Suez Canal of 1888.

Neither of which were in effect in 1956. The Anglo Egyption Treaty had been disolved by the Pasha of Egypt in 1951 before Nasser took office in a coup in 1952. The Constantinople convention of the Suez Canal of 1888 didn't even mention Egypt as a concerned party. No Egyption signed it or was party to it's terms.

Nobody in the world considered those treaties binding on the first post colonial government of Egypt in 1956. I've never heard the argument today that those treaties were binding or a justification of the invasion an crisis in 1956. Which is evidenced by the fact that Britian France and Israel didn't use those treaties as justifiction for their scheme to seize the canal back. Rather they concocted an intricate plot to seize the canal and hoodwink the world community. The Military seizure suceeded, the hoodwinking part not so much. Also the fact that Britian, France, and Israel came under blistering critisim for their actions demonstrates the world and international law was not on their side. Hell their own countries weren't on their side in the case of Britain. The PM of Britian was forced to resign over his role in the 1956 suez crisis, and Israel was even threatenned with being forceble removed from the Sinia by the United States. ( Eisenhower Doctrine Jan 1957 ).

Israel did not have the ability to use the Suez Canal from 1948-the early 1970's excepting periods of 1951-52. Israel fought four major wars with Egypt over that time period and won all of them, and still didn't get to use the Canal. I don't understand why you are stuck on the Suez Canal, when the wars being discussed weren't designed to change the status quoe of the canal.. It was the Straight of Tiran which Israel cared about, and that was only closed just prior to the 1967 war.

[JMS]

BTW, if Predicto was right. I do apologize. I respect you as a debater and poster even though on this topic we are almost always on different sides. That doesn't mean that I don't think you are frequently wrong or more precisely that your interpretations of history are off... I do, but I do not think you post with malice or with a hope for blood.

No problem, I respect you as a debater too, and if you got personal in this thread it's only because you are personally and emotionally attached to this subject. I respect you even more because you can realize it and pull back when it's suggested, you might have crossed the line. Something we all have a problem doing and something that identifies you as one of the class acts on this board.

I think we might agree if we made the general statement that Israel has not always been on the defensive in her troubled history, just as she has not always been the agressor. It seems our differences occur when we try to get more specific than that.

[PeterMP]

The Anglo Egyptian treaty signed in 1936, wasn't with Nassers government and Nassers government wasn't the ones who violated it in 1951. Rather the Pasha of Egypt violated it, Britain ignored him, and the resulting tension and violence is what brought Nasser to power in 1952, and ended the Pasha's rule in Egypt.

Did the United States honor treaties signed in it's name by Britian before 1776? Did Israel honor treaties signed by Britian on their behalf as part of the Palistinian mandate?

Your comparision isn't valid because in neither case did the British government cease to exist (I have often wondered how Native Americans would do in suing in British courts for the British failing to mantain their agreements), but actually my understanding of international law would have in fact required Nasser to abide by the treaty.

It isn't logical to me, but I understand why it is that way (stable countries write international law and they want governments from unstable countries to be tied to the law (e.g. if an even more extreme government would take control of Iran we'd be able to tell them they are signees of the NNPT, and we expect them to abide by it. Also they've automatically approved the UN charter making them members in the UN).

More to the point this is all irrelevant. As I've already stated the Nasser regime accepted the Suez Convention.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,809331,00.html

Again the Anglow Egyption treaty died in 1951 years before Nasser nationalized the canal. When Nasser did nationalize the canal through force of arms, the world supported him, including the United States who threatenned Israel with war if she iddn't withdraw from the Sinai in 1957. (Eisenhower Doctrine Jan of 1957).

1. Treaties don't die.

2. That their actions weren't supported doesn't mean that Egypt wasn't in violation. Most of the world didn't support our invasion of Iraq, but that doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't in violation of UN resoultion 1441 (not with respect to the material they had, but with respect to their failure to cooperate with inspectors as repored by Hans Blix).

Which would be a really devistating point if France, Britian, or Israel had a UN mandate to invade Egypt in 1956. The reality of the situation is they had no mandate. They manufactured their own justification. Conspiring with Israel to threaten the canal, and then Britain and France moved in to secure the canal from Israel / Egyption hostilities. All worked out in advance by the three parties.

You didn't mention a UN mandate just large enough militaries to get the job done in your first post:

"UN resolutions are not binding unless powerful members of the UN care enough to commit troops."

The Sinia canal was closed to Israeli flagged ships from 1948-1975 please explain to me how that justified the 1956 invasion of Egypt?

I'm not saying the invasion was justified. That would require that was an appropriate response based on use of force. I'm also not saying that it was the main reason the Isrealis ever attacked Egypt. I'm not even saying that any of the Isreali attacks on Egypt were ever justified when taking into account all of their justifications for any of the conflicts (much less that not allowing shipping through the Suez Canal wasn't the driving factor).

All I'm saying is that Egypt used force an a manner illegal under international law and treaties they had signed to stop ships from going to Israel. That's all I'm saying.

A land grab is a land grab. An attack is an attack. Doesn't matter if you had good justification or not. Or if it turned out to be good for your country or not. Fact is Israel coveted the land, and the land they coveted did not secure the suez canal ship traffic as you are asserting.

I will point out that you as you have correctly stated prevoiusly the Suez Canal did open to Israeli shipping post the Suez Canal treaty when UN peace keepers were on the scene. Furthermore if the Israeli/French/British plan had worked, it is likely that it would have stayed open to Israeli trade.

In reality we now know Egypt was amassing troops because the soviets had told them Israel was about to attack them. It's also the reason why Egypt asked the UN troops to get out of the way.

The Israelis didn't know that.

Straits of Tiran was the final straw. It made getting oil from Iran significantly more of a pain in the butt, and besides Israel was very confident they could kick the snott out of Egypt. It's like having a 10lb weakling poke you in the eye, how many times are you going to take it until you kick his butt.

Hey, I agree and one of those pokes in the eye was prevention of using the Suez Canal.

Egypt recognizes Palistine. So does that make them not recognizing Israel legal in your eyes? Fact is it's not Illegal to not recognize other countries, it's just kind of stupid. It was stupid for us not to recognize China until the Nixon administration in the 1970's. It's silly for the Arabs to not recognize and discuss their problems with Israel from 48 until the 1980's. Some of the Arab countries like Saudi still haven't had talks with Israel to my knowledge.

That sounds to me like you are spliting hairs. Fact is we didn't recognize Red China for 35 years. The largest most populous country on earth. It wasn't illegal of us to do so, just not very bright.

Israel wasn't created by the UN either. It was created by force of arms.

Israel’s juridical birth certificate came from a League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922. I think you might be thinking of General Assembly Resolution no. 181 of 1947 (commonly known as the Palestine Partition Plan ) which established two state solution, not a one state solution in what is today Israel.

The UN said that the Jewish state of Israel should exist. The Arab nations at the time went further than not recognizing Israel in a diplomatic sense in that they refused to reconize the Israel's right to exist.

If you can't understand the difference between not sharing diplomatic ties with a country (which we've done in time with the like of Iran) and not recognizing the right for the country to exist at all, I'm not sure I can explain it to you.

[JMS]

Your comparision isn't valid because in neither case did the British government cease to exist

So you are saying the British governemnt ceased to exist in 1950's?

To recap. US not responsible for treaties signed by Britain on it's behalf before 1776. Israel not responsible for treaties signed by Britain on it's behalf prior to 1948.... Egypt not responsible for treaties signed Britain regarding Egyption land prior to 1952. Egypt not responsible for treaties signed by earlier colonial Egyption government (Pasha) on it's behalf prior to 1952.

[Predicto]

1. Treaties don't die.

Under some circumstances they most certainly do. The withdrawal of a colonial power in favor of a newly Independent native state would generally be one of those times.

Just nitpicking, of course.

[JMS]

More to the point this is all irrelevant. As I've already stated the Nasser regime accepted the Suez Convention.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,809331,00.html

In APRIL of 1957!! After the conflict. Those were the terms he agreed to to help get the combatants to retreat. I don't think that proves he violated anything from 52 to 56, and it also doesn't mean he signed a treaty either.. Fact is Nasser did let Britian and France use the suez. He didn't let Israel ever use the suez. Neither did Sadat until Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt and returned the Sinai.

The ISraeli's didn't know that

That the Soviet Union gave Egypt and Syria fals information of an impending Israeli attack which sparked Egypts in Syria's enhanced Military footing, which indeed did spark the actual Israeli attack.

Nobody knew that. Two Israeli scholars just published a paper to that effect in 2007 after going through old soviet papers declasified in Russia.

1. Treaties don't die.

So then why didn't the soviet union honor the Czar's treaties and continue to fight Germany in WWI after taking power?

Fact is a treaty is between governments, not geographical locations on the map. They definitely die when the governments die.

I'm not totally sure about this but in 1795 the United States signed Jay's treaty which allowed the British to board US flagged ships and impress our sailors. That treaty died.... we killed it with the war of 1812.

You didn't mention a UN mandate just large enough militaries to get the job done in your first post:

"UN resolutions are not binding unless powerful members of the UN care enough to commit troops."

A United Nation's resolution is what gives you a United Nations Mandate.

That sounds to me like you are spliting hairs.

You said it was ilegal for Egypt not to recognize Israel. I said we didn't recognize China for 30 years after their revolution. You said that wasn't ilegal because we did recognize Taiwan as the proper authority for all of China. I pointed out that Egypt likewise recognized the Palistinians as the proper authority of ISrael, and you are saying I'm splitting hairs?

I think your point is absurd. We don't recognize Jerusalem as the captial of Israel, no country does to my knowledge, is that ilegal? We don't recognize their annexation of the Golan Heights is that illegal?

Recognition is a diplomatic tool, it's not a legal issue.

[JMS]

Under some circumstances they most certainly do. The withdrawal of a colonial power in favor of a newly Independent native state would generally be one of those times.

Just nitpicking, of course.

I don't think you are nitpicking, I think you are just discribing reality.

[PeterMP]

In APRIL of 1957!! After the conflict. Those were the terms he agreed to to help get the combatants to retreat. I don't think that proves he violated anything from 52 to 56, and it also doesn't mean he signed a treaty either.. Fact is Nasser did let Britian and France use the suez. He didn't let Israel ever use the suez. Neither did Sadat until Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt and returned the Sinai.

So pre-1957 he was in violation of international law. Then post-1957 he continued to violate that agreement, but not allowing non-military aid to go to Israel.

I'll give you another link:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1947-1974/3+Israel-s+Complaint+to+the+Security+Council+on+th.htm

So then why didn't the soviet union honor the Czar's treaties and continue to fight Germany in WWI after taking power?

Fact is a treaty is between governments, not geographical locations on the map. They definitely die when the governments die.

I'm not totally sure about this but in 1795 the United States signed Jay's treaty which allowed the British to board US flagged ships and impress our sailors. That treaty died.... we killed it with the war of 1812.

1. With respect to Russia, because they knew nobody would bother to enforce it.

2. It didn't die iwas made irrelevant by the treaty signed at the end of the war of 1812. That isn't a death. It is superceded. Laws don't die. They might be ignored, repealed, or superceded. The same is true for treaties.

You said it was ilegal for Egypt not to recognize Israel. I said we didn't recognize China for 30 years after their revolution. You said that wasn't ilegal because we did recognize Taiwan as the proper authority for all of China. I pointed out that Egypt likewise recognized the Palistinians as the proper authority of ISrael, and you are saying I'm splitting hairs?

I think your point is absurd. We don't recognize Jerusalem as the captial of Israel, no country does to my knowledge, is that ilegal? We don't recognize their annexation of the Golan Heights is that illegal?

Recognition is a diplomatic tool, it's not a legal issue.

1. Actually, I didn't say anything about the legality of us not recognizing China. I just was pointing out that you were technically wrong that we didn't recognize a government w/ respect to China.

2. I never even said it would be illegal for the Arabs not to diplomatically recognize Israel.

3. I did say that their actual contentionthat Israel didn't have the right to exist was against UN resolutions.

[PeterMP]

Fact is a treaty is between governments, not geographical locations on the map. They definitely die when the governments die.

I'm not totally sure about this but in 1795 the United States signed Jay's treaty which allowed the British to board US flagged ships and impress our sailors. That treaty died.... we killed it with the war of 1812.

Maybe somebody should tell that to Egypt?

http://tilj.org/journal/print/scrutinizing_the_scorpion_problematique/

"The 1929 Nile Waters Agreement between Britain and Egypt is perhaps the most controversial of these agreements because of its purportedly expansive reach. The Egyptian government claims that the 1929 Agreement is not only binding on Egypt, but also on Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya, on whose behalf the British signed the 1929 Agreement.178 Although the British government purported to represent its East African colonies’ interests, the 1929 Agreement’s terms make it unambiguously clear whose interests the British held to be paramount. The 1929 Agreement provides for a lopsided allocation of the Nile, with 48 billion cubic meters of water allocated to Egypt with a remaining four billion apportioned to the Sudan."

[81artmonk]

I'm sure you will be stunned upon your return that you were the one who got the time out.

I was stunned at first, but after I figured out why, I wasn't. I however must admit that it was worth it!! The hypocracy here is sometimes overwhelming. People can post personal stabs veiled with their comment and that's ok, but if you are just open with the personal stab you get the boot.

That's ok though. I've come to accept that's how things run around here. I figured that if I am going to get booted, I better make it worth while. I am tired of people taking personal stabs at ANYONE on this board rather than having meaningful debate, and if it meant getting the boot than it was worth being able to verablly attack them back!!

Cheers!!