NationStates Jolt Archive

Cuba was not part of the USSR. The Soviets does not have a valid casus beli based solely on having ships carrying weaopnry prevented from reaching their destination.

They were allies so yes, they could have made a case for war in supporting their ally that was being blockaded by their enemy, the US.

Egypt had more divisions on the border than 2. I recommend you read the book Six Days of War. It does a good job of offering a neutral perspective on the war.

It was clear to Israel that a war was going to occur in June of 1967. Their choices were to either wait for Egypt to attack first. If that happened, there would be another Holocaust. Israel couldn't allow it to occur so Israel made a preemptive strike. The strike was 100% legal because of Egypt's decision to blockade the Straights of Tiran, which closed the port of Eilat.

I meant he mobolised two....So how many divisions did Egypt had on the border?


They were allies so yes, they could have made a case for war in supporting their ally that was being blockaded by their enemy, the US.

Oh yea, sure makes a lot of sense declaring war because an ally has a casus beli. Now if Cuba declared war then the USSR would have one, but Cuba didn't, so neither did the USSR.


Let us not forget barring Israeli ships from using the Suez Canal.

In no way a casus beli. In fact, it is so far from one I can't even think of a parrallel off the top of my head.

Oh yea, sure makes a lot of sense declaring war because an ally has a casus beli. Now if Cuba declared war then the USSR would have one, but Cuba didn't, so neither did the USSR.

I guess you did not know that both Cuba and the USSR were talking strategy when the US announced their blockade. Castro wanted war. He told the Soviets to use the missiles. Luckily, the USSR did not agree with Castro. SO yes, Cuba wanted war and thus the USSR would be involved since Castro could not defeat the US. So yes, the Soviet Union would have to declare war if they wanted to break the blockade since we were blockading SOVIET SHIPS from entering Cuban waters with orders to fire of SOVIET SHIPS!

In no way a casus beli. In fact, it is so far from one I can't even think of a parrallel off the top of my head.

According to you at least. To Israel, that's a different ball game.

In no way a casus beli. In fact, it is so far from one I can't even think of a parrallel off the top of my head.

Declaring war because they won't let you fly through their airspace?

I believe they did no such thing. Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, who hardly ever goes there anyway. It might be provocative, but if the USSR would go to war over such grounds (1962) only a fraction of humanity would be alive now. Definitely not a casus beli.

And if I remember correctly the 'mobilisation' you speak of was two divisions.

Erm, the Gulf of Aquba was also closed, this cut off Israels ONLY two shipping routes.

Erm, the Gulf of Aquba was also closed, this cut off Israels ONLY two shipping routes.

Ships aren't allowed in the Mediterranean?

Erm, the Gulf of Aquba was also closed, this cut off Israels ONLY two shipping routes.

Indeed.

Erm, the Gulf of Aquba was also closed, this cut off Israels ONLY two shipping routes.And?

Indeed.

Can someone point me to a map that shows how closing off the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aquba prevent Israel shipping through the Mediterranian?

Or perhaps look at where the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aquba are in relation to each other and realise the Straits are the entry to the Gulf of Aquba....

And?

Well blocking Israel's only 2 shipping lanes is inviting an attack to reopen them. That was a stupid move to do.

Can someone point me to a map that shows how closing off the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aquba prevent Israel shipping through the Mediterranian?

Or perhaps look at where the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aquba are in relation to each other and realise the Straits are the entry to the Gulf of Aquba....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Strait_tiran_83.jpg

There ya go. As to Mediterranian, that would make things more expensive depending on destination as shipping costs would go up.

There ya go. As to Mediterranian, that would make things more expensive depending on destination as shipping costs would go up.

So...

assuming both you and the poster you agreed with were both aware that Israel was on the Mediterranian - it was an outright lie to state that Israels "ONLY" shipping routes were closed off?

And also a lie to claim that 'two' routes were closed as the Straits of Tiran lead into the Gulf of Aquba - as the Straits are an entry into the Gulf, and so closing the Gulf nullifies closing the Straits as a seperate issue.

Or was it just ignorance?

Israel's original war plan was to only deal with Egypt and Syria. (the 2 nations who were going to attack Israel and were preparing for war). Jordan got involved when they ignored Israel's request to stay out of it. Jordan fired the first shots at Israel and then Israel responded by capturing the Jordanian West Bank.

Israel’s original war plan even before the Suez crises in 1956 was to take this part of Jordan and join the rest with Iraq. The Anglo-French did not allow Israel to take Jordan at the time.

What I am trying to say is that the plans for taking East Jerusalem and the West Bank were in place long before the opportunity arose in 1967. Israel aspired to gain these territories long before the war. During the Chaos of the war it is very hard to discern who fired the first shots and whether that these are signs of invasion of minor skirmishes that happened more regularly. It is nice that you are so certain that Jordan fired first, but I think one can not know.

What we do know, and all can agree on is that Israel felt threatened in 1967. Whether this threat was real or simply politically expedient for Israel to gain Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (though at the heart of much debate) is not the core issue. Israel felt threatened and we can accept that it struck first. We cannot decide that in the mind of Israel the threat was not real; therefore we must accept this first strike.

However, we cannot accept the following enduring occupation, forcing people to live as refugees. We cannot accept how both Arab and Israeli government have stripped these people of basic human rights. Israeli security needs may have warranted a military operation; they did not however warrant the marginalization and occupation of people living on the West Bank and Gaza.

I guess you did not know that both Cuba and the USSR were talking strategy when the US announced their blockade. Castro wanted war. He told the Soviets to use the missiles. Luckily, the USSR did not agree with Castro. SO yes, Cuba wanted war and thus the USSR would be involved since Castro could not defeat the US.

The USSR intervening in a American-Cuban War is not the same as the USSR declaring war on America just because Cuba was blockaded. Stop trying to stretch the facts.

So yes, the Soviet Union would have to declare war if they wanted to break the blockade since we were blockading SOVIET SHIPS from entering Cuban waters with orders to fire of SOVIET SHIPS!

And did the U.S. Navy in fact sunk any Soviet ships? No. So they had no casus belli for war. If Soviet ships were fired on, though, it would have been WWIII, which is why lucky for humanity the Soviets 'just blinked'.


According to you at least. To Israel, that's a different ball game.

Let me get this straight. You think that denying a FOREIGN country use of YOUR own canal is an act of war? America froze N. Korean assets, I believe. Does that count too?

Let me get this straight. You think that denying a FOREIGN country use of YOUR own canal is an act of war? America froze N. Korean assets, I believe. Does that count too?

Actually, it can. It was one of the excuses for the Franco-Prussian War, IIRC.

But of course, a Casus Belli is a cause for war, a reason to initiate hostilities. If you're going to lose, you'd have to be pretty stupid to actually begin them.