Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epsteinbd who wrote (24155)	4/9/2002 9:45:55 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

In 1956, EIlat was not cut off, the Suez canal was, and the oil kept coming from Iran, via the Red sea. us-israel.org In 1949, Egypt occupied the islands of Tiran and Sanafir at the entrance of the Gulf of Aqaba, Gun emplacements were installed at Ras Nasrani and Egypt thus assumed effective control of the three-mile-wide straits and a blockade was imposed on shipping bound for the Israeli port of Eilat. On 28 January 1950, Egypt informed the United States of the occupation of Dran and Sanafir and explained the nature of the occupation: And another link: adl.org So I have to ask you Epstein... do you ever bother to verify your information? Finding the links above took me all of about 60 seconds. Btw, the US blockade of Cuba was technically an act of war on our part. But what the heck was Castro or the Soviets going to do about it? Kennedy stared them down and they "blinked" first. Hawk

To: epsteinbd who wrote (24155)	4/9/2002 11:11:13 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi epsteinbd; I believe that a blockade is, technically and legally, an act of war. That doesn't mean that a country has to respond to it with hostilities, but hey, the US could have turned the other cheek when Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor. Here's a legal reference: Blockade as Act of War Christopher Greenwood Under the traditional concept of blockade, a belligerent was entitled to proclaim a blockade of all or part of the enemy’s coast and to use warships to enforce that blockade. There was no legal obligation to comply with a blockade, but any merchant ship, whether belligerent or neutral, that was intercepted by the blockading State while attempting to run the blockade was liable to capture. Following the decision of a prize court, ship and cargo became the property of the blockading power. The traditional concept of the blockade was confined, therefore, to the law of naval warfare. Blockade today is a technical legal term that most people, including lawyers, use without much precision to describe a variety of conduct beyond maritime operations. ... crimesofwar.org If what the Egyptians did was to close the gulf of Aqaba to Israeli bound traffic, (not through the Suez, but instead straight to that little Israeli port on the gulf of Aqaba), then that would be a blockade, and therefore an act of war. Even though Aqaba is very narrow, since it leads to an Israeli port it becomes an international waterway, and therefore open to passage by naval vessels without the permission of Egypt. -- Carl