Who is the victim here?

[Herschel]

If Israel loses its security fence case, the repercussions will be devastating - for humanity, for the cause of justice, for the citizens of Israel.

Here's the dilemma: A democratic country might be prosecuted for trying to defend itself from terrorist attacks that leave innocent citizens dead in cafes and buses, on streets and on roads.

The terrorist perpetrators of the attacks - government, citizens and those who actually support, sponsor and carry out the attacks - are perceived as the innocent victims.

Strange scenario? True scenario.

Why is the democratic country, Israel, being charged? How is it that the perpetrators, the Palestinians, are emerging as innocents? What really is the crime that has been committed? The answers to these questions make so little sense that the situation would be laughable were it not so serious. It would be ludicrous, if the world were not paying so much attention.

cut

http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El1014&enZone=Opinions&enVersion=0&

Innocents build a fence to stop killers and the innocents are criticized. Oh, my.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[corporatewhore]

2. we live in orwellian times

[LiberalVoice]

3. What are you talking about?!?

I do not believe for a single second that the terrorists that are killed are perceived as innocents. I do however see the hundreds(If not thousands) of actual innocent people killed ever year by the Israeli government and those terrorist organizations as those who need the help!

The Isreali government is less concerned with keeping their citizens safe as they are making sure the palestinian people are classified as second class citizens, if not animals!

[LiberalVoice]

4. "Why is the democratic country, Israel, being charged?"

That has to be the most laughable sentence I have ever read on this site. That you for one moment would try and make anyone believe that Israel is a democratic country is disgusting!

[Herschel]

5. Surely

Israel's governemnt is preferable to most in the region.

[bluesoul]

6. Nope

not to me...

[Herschel]

7. Explain yourself

Which is superior to Israel?

[bluesoul]

9. Superior? LOL

You consider Israel superior to other countries? I don't like Sharon nor his government nor do I like some Arab governments. Don't make me choose between such bad alternatives. There are better. In Israel and in Arab countries...

[Herschel]

10. I believe Israel

enjoys a form of government and standard of living preferable to many of her neighbors. Perhaps these neighbors would benefit from an end to their loathing of little Israel.

[Djinn]

40. only for jewish inhabitants

the standard of living for Arabs particularly in the occupied territories (who may not be Israeli citizens but whose lives are controlled by an unelected Israeli govt) but also for those inside per-1967 borders is considerably harder than for jewish israeli's - it includes blatant institutionalised discrimination that has no place in a democracy.

[GabysPoppy]

47. How is the Israeli government unelected?

I await this explanation.

[Djinn]

54. it's really pretty simple

the people in the occupied territories are RULED by Israel but cabn not vote in Israeli elections, 3.5 MILLION people face thias reality

If you make decision that effect people's lives they should be able to vote you out.

The settlers who live in the occupied territories (which are NOT considered Israel for purposes of voter eligibility) are PROTECTED by the Israeli governemnt even though they live OUTSIDE the Israeli borders - if it were a real democracy either ALL people in those areas get to vote or NONE of them get to vote.

To summarise: If you are Jewish and live in the occupied territories you can vote and will be provided will all the benefits of Israeli citizenship and it's services/infrastructure. You will not need soldiers to approve your daily movements, you will have access to your crops and will not be subject to curfews and illegal house demolitions

If you are an Arab living in the exact same place you may not vote and may not utilise those services, you will have your movements restricted, you may be permanently denied access to your crops and livelihood and will be subjected to Israel authorised curfews.

BTW - the Israeli Democracy Institute found less than half the Israeli population in favour of full rights for Arabs (see military service and the benefits extending from this denied to Arabs) and that 77% of the population believes there should be a JEWISH majority on policy decisions THATS a theocracy not a democracy

[GabysPoppy]

63. I wrote this for someone else but it may answer some of your points

Here are your three questions

"Why does "Jewish state" have to mean Jewish majority? Why is the Israeli Arab minority seen as such a threat? Why can't Israeli Arabs have a political party that wants to do away with ethnic and religious distinctions? (It seems that this was ruled illegal.)"

1. Why does "Jewish State" have to mean a Jewish majority?

Spend about a year or two in a library studying history. Find me another people that have been persecuted to the degree the Jewish people have been throughout history. Be it the pogroms in Poland, the gas chambers in Germany or the expulsion from Arab lands and all because they were Jewish. We are not talking about minor incidents, we are talking millions of people whose crime was being Jewish. Oh yes some will throw in "What about the (fill in the blank)? I am talking about a magnitude that belies understanding. If another example of a distinct people can be mentioned in the same breath with Jewish people. I will concede their own need for a separate state. Now add to that for hundreds of years Jews have been charged with deicide. Even today we have the Mel Gibson movie adding fuel to that fire. Lets add to that slanderous charge with another one of Jews needing "non-Jewish" blood to make Matzoh used during the Passover holiday. Take away a Jewish majority from a Jewish state?
NO FUCKING WAY
ENOUGH IS FUCKING ENOUGH

2. Why is the Israeli Arab minority seen as such a threat?

Let me relate a personal story to you. Last year I spent Passover in Israel with my sister. We went shopping one day and my sister pointed out to me a bus stop on the road. (BTW, I should mention this story relates to a suicide bombing in the recent past.) Anyway the bus stop she pointed out was the stop where the bomber got on the bus. A minute or two later she pointed to another bus stop. This where two Arab girls got off the bus because of a warning from the bomber as to his intentions. Twenty five minutes of driving later she pointed to a third location. This was where the bomber blew himself up and killed and maimed many people. Yet in those twenty five minutes these two Arab girls did absolutely nothing to possibly keep this incident from happening. This incident and scores of examples of Israeli Arabs aiding and abetting terrorism is not uncommon in Israel. Now you ask why they are considered a possible threat?

3. Why can't Israeli Arabs have a political party that wants to do away with ethnic and religious distinctions?

First they do have their own party and are represented in the Knesset. They are just not going to get their way about everything they want. It doesn't work that way. Not in Israel and not in any country that has a minority party as part of the government. That also is another way that democracy works. Another thing about Israeli Arabs you will find out about in the near future. The more you hear about Sharon's idea of moving or trading Israeli Arab villages to Palestine, the more you will here Israeli Arabs protesting that plan. Given the choice of living in Israel proper where they have health care, jobs, educational opportunities etc. as opposed to living under a regime headed by Arafat or his puppet of the week is not a choice they want fostered on them.

[bluesoul]

64. Your views on Israeli Arabs

are generalizing at the least...

[GabysPoppy]

65. And how many do you think

Would choose life with Arafat? If you think many, please tell us the many benefits they would enjoy that they don't have now. The Israeli Arabs sure would like to know as would many of us.

[LiberalVoice]

8. Preferable does not mean democratic.

Egypt has a more "Democratic" government then Israel. Even though they are one of the most corrupt governments on the planet.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberalVoice]

12. "Misinformation and Hatred"

What are you talking about?

I do not agree with everything Edwards says or does. But, I fail to see how that makes me misinformed or full of hate.

Would appreciate an explanation...

[bluesoul]

13. Don't worry LV

....

[MikeGalos]

15. Oh bull

Egypt suspended elections for years due to "Civil Crises" on more than one occasion. How is that "More Democratic"?

[Djinn]

41. people who live in Occupied Palestine

havn't EVER been able to vote for the government who's action and policies affect their daily lives and their basic human rights.

Israel CAN NOT have it both ways - either you remove ALL Israeli interests and military from the pre 1967 borders or you give every single Palestinian living there the opportunity to vote for the Israeli governemnt

[MikeGalos]

57. People who live in the West Bank and Gaza

are the ones who elected the PA government (or did you think they get to vote in two countries' elections)

[Gimel]

59. Israelis didn't elect Arafat

Once Arafat agreed to peace, he returned to Gaza with a Nobel Prize. In that sense the Nobel committee elected him. The people in the PA confirmed it. Israelis did not have a vote.

Palestinians have allowed Hamas and IJ to rule their lives and dominate Israel. Arafat has refused to act to control the terrorism which has slaughtered ordinary Israeli citizens, and long before Sharon came into office, elected to counter that terrorism.

[tinnypriv]

19. Eh?

Mubarak is an absolute monarch, and his security forces detain Egyptian peace activists without charge.

Israel is the most democratic country is the region.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Of course it is democratic

Your attempt to claim otherwise is false.

[rockymountaindem]

16. What evidence do you have that Israel is not Democratic?

In Israel, everyone has the opportunity to vote, even the Arab citizens. There are, I believe, 13 parties represented in the 120-seat Knesset. That throws a monkey wrench in the argument of those who say that Israel is less democratic than the US, as there are more than just two parties represented here. Furthermore, the so-called "ruling" party, Likud, has only 37 seats. Don't tar Israelis with such a broad brush, less of them voted for Sharon than Americans voted for Bush in the last election. Furthermore, Sharon and his "gang" do not have unlimited power, as they must share the cabinet with an equal representation of members from other parties. To say that Israel is un-democratic is silly. Of course, some Israelis are prejudiced against Arabs, but one cannot hold the Israeli government responsible for that.

[LiberalVoice]

17. Three Words

State of Occupation

[rockymountaindem]

18. Israel took that land fair and square, first of all.

Secondly, just think of what would happen in the West Bank and the Gaza strip tomorrow and with out warning. It wouldn't be pretty for any of the parties involved. Another thing I will point out is that most of those Arabs on the West Bank aren't Israeli citizens, and therefore don't have the right to vote in Israeli elections. If they want to vote so badly, they could find a real way of making their own country. Throughout history, people have felt oppressed, angry. Gandhi led a peaceful revolution in India. If he had wanted, 500 million Indians could have risen up and murdered every white person in India. That didn't happen. Martin Luther King could have told his followers to attack white people, to riot with weapons and kill people. He didn't.

How else is Israel supposed to deal with Hamas etc? I know it is easy for us to say that they should separate between the terrorists and civilians. We must remember that in Israel, the attackers don't live thousands of miles away, but only just a few. Can you imagine the fear of the Israeli people? I know the so-called "occupation" can be ugly at times, but what other way is there?

[tinnypriv]

20. You should be aware

That your position is contradictory.

You'd better hope Israel is Occupying (capital 'O') the West Bank and Gaza, otherwise it is one of the most racist, expansionist regimes on the face of the planet, denying the vote to millions of people under its control.

Incidentially, the Palestinians tried almost no resistance to occupation for 30 years. That is why they were called Samidin (google it).

That failed, because they were crushed with extreme violence by Israel.

Now the "balance of terror" is not massively in Israel's favor, just mostly, and you can blame that in large part on its unwillingness to give up the West Bank and Gaza.

That addresses the parts of your post that can possibly be addressed. The others ("If they want to vote so badly, they could find a real way of making their own country"), I have no words. I hope you reflect on them before repeating them.

[MikeGalos]

21. What 30 years would that be?

I know of NO 30 year period from 1967 until today that did not have a wealth of viscious terror attacks on innocent civilians by your "non-resisting" "Palestinians".

Please, enlighten us with what 30 years you mean (And I'll happily tell you about the murders that put a lie to your claim if you bother to make one)

[tinnypriv]

24. "almost"

As you certainly should be aware by now, if there is a caveat in a post of mine, it is there for a reason.

Move along.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Almost?

What are you doing, adding up the days (or hours) between terror attacks to make that claim?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blitz]

27. Again, what was the 30 year period

of which you spoke?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdon326]

32. Maybe he meant...

There was once a 30 *MINUTE* period when the "Palestinians" weren't committing acts of atrocity against innocent civilians.

[Djinn]

42. well that'd be more peace than

the people living under occupation have had

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blitz]

36. Can I have a response?

When was the thirty year period to which you referred?

[tinnypriv]

44. No

Always prepared to answer questions, me.

[Blitz]

45. "the Palestinians tried almost no resistance to occupation for 30 years. "

A falsehood posted as fact. Just for the record.

[tinnypriv]

46. You're right

I guess posting "no", does count as a response. I stand corrected.

[sabbat hunter]

49. i googled

Samidin and came up with zilch on any resistance movement. just a bunch of russian websites

peace
david
:hippie:

[drdon326]

51. Here it is...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Samidin+&btnG=Google+Search


youre right.....zilch.

tinny, this is just not youre night.

To quote Bluto....

"if i were you,i'd drink heavily"

[tinnypriv]

52. My mistake

I had too much faith in google.

Consult Fateful Triangle, p143 (onwards, or the index) or serious contemporary I/P peace groups, where you see the term used often (Samid is the singular, derived from "sumud").

I believe the phrase is often used by the Palestinians, and may be largely their creation (it's Arabic).

[drdon326]

53. Here's an idea....

instead of making us search in all these cryptic places,
how about just giving us the damn meaning and stop playing
games??

[tinnypriv]

56. The meaning is complex

Hence the citation.

If you want the simple answer, I'm told it means roughly "steadfast" or "sticking" (to the land).

That is common usage, not literally (in the same way that "Hasbara" in Hebrew literally means "explanation", but in usage comes out as "propaganda").

[LiberalVoice]

22. Excuses excuses...

First you say, "Israel took that land fair and square".

Makes no sense...The Israeli's killed thousands upon thousand of people to "Take that land, fair and square."

Then you say, "Gandhi led a peaceful revolution in India." and "Martin Luther King could have told his followers to attack white people", and yet you criticize the palestinians for killing innocent people aswell? Saying they should take a peaceful approach.

I think the killing of innocent people is wrong no matter which side I'm on...You should examine your reasoning.

[MikeGalos]

30. Oh, and since you claim to know about what's "fair"

here are the actual UN resolutions that grant Israel the rights to the land until a peace treaty is achieved. I call your attention to 242's Enabling Clause 1 and 338's Enabling Clause 2

Read it and learn...

---

United Nations Security Council
Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967


The Security Council,


Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,


Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,


1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

[rockymountaindem]

37. Um... what?

I admire Gandhi and Mr. King for not killing people. They achieved their aims peaceably. I am criticizing the Palestinian terrorists for killing Innocent people. I don't understand why you think I'm being contradictory. I'm pointing out how much more noble Gandhi and King were.

[Djinn]

55. yes violence doesn't solve anything

now if we could just get that message to the IDF they seem to view sitting in an ARMOURED vehicle and shooting children with machine guns as ACCEPTABLE SELF DEFENCE when said children are throwing rocks (just to repeat...throwing rocks at armed men in armed vehicles....oh sorry you mean violence against anyone except Palestinians is wrong

[MikeGalos]

23. Absolutely

UN Security Council Resolution 242(1967) gives very clear discussion of what must be done by the Arab states in the region before Israel is expected to return ANY of the land captured in the 1967 war. Resolution 338(1973) repeats the requirements for the 1973 war.

Despite ludicrous claims to the contrary, Israel has every international right to hold the land captured in those two wars until, as part of a peace treaty, it returns land to Jordan, Egypt and Syria including border adjustments agreed to for security.

[LiberalVoice]

29. I think you missed the point.

It is hypocritical to say that Israel taking that land by means of violence is right but, any palestinians using violence as a means to further there cause is wrong.

Once again...The killing of innocent people is wrong. Regardless of which side of the "fence" I'm standing on.

[MikeGalos]

31. Perhaps you should actually read something

before making accusations about "rights".

Intentionally murdering civilians is a violation international law.
Holding land prior to its return as part of a UN mandated peace treaty is in accordance with international law.

I posted 242 and 338 in their entirety complete with the UN's own formatting. Feel free to read them and get back to us when you know what you are talking about.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rockymountaindem]

38. When I say Israel took that land fair and square...

I didn't mean without violence. Here's the deal, read any history book and see what I mean.

In 1967, Egypt closed the Strait of Tiran (between the Sinai peninsula and the Saudi Peninsula) to Israeli shipping. This was done by positioning heavy artillery in the highlands overlooking the narrow passage, and promising to destroy any Israeli ships passing through to the Israeli port of Eliat. Because the strait is an international waterway, ships of all nations have the right to pass. Egypt's move to close the strait to the Israelis constituted an act of aggression, as "Cassus Belli".

Furthermore, Egypt had mobilized its army along the border with Israel, and it was increasingly clear to everyone Egypt and their Jordanian and Syrian allies were planning an attack on Israel. On June 5, 1967 Israel launched a preemptive strike against the Egyptian air force. According to all international law, Israel launched a war of self-defense and was justified in its actions.

At the time, the West Bank was held by Jordan, and the Gaza Strip by Egypt. Both were taken by Israel in the course of open warfare between states. According to international law, Israel's actions were all legal.

[MikeGalos]

39. And both

the UN and International Law agree with your assessment.

[tinnypriv]

43. Sure. I've read three relating to the straits

Closing the Straits doesn't count as a reason for war. Three refutations (and note that the first is considered extremely pro-Israel):

• "(The straits of Tiran) were murky legal waters" (Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War, p.141)



• "The actual documentary record shows that Israel (only had) the right to 'free and innocent' passage through the Straits, and that the US called for 'any recurrence of hostilties or violation by any party' to be referred back to the UN" (Norman G. Finklestein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, p.190 and sources cited)



• "Egypt's exercising (of) belligerent rights in relation to Israeli shipping (in the Straits), consitute(d) no justification for the armed invasion of Egypt by Israel" (U.S. President Eisenhower, cited in The Arab-Israeli Conflict, Vol. III: Documents, John Norton Moore, (ed.) p.649).

---

So, unless you are prepared to cite the "history book(s)" that you're reading, you find yourself in opposition to a pro-Israel hawk, a left-wing author, and a former president of the United States.

These are by no means the only sources on this topic either.

-----

Note: This is a slighty modified version of a post of mine from July 2003.

[rockymountaindem]

48. "A History of the Middle East Wars"

I don't remember the author. I'm at college and all my books are at home. Also, "Jewish Literacy" by Joseph Telushkin. While he is a religious authority, not a historian, I believe that he has this fact cited with a footnote which you could pursue. Furthermore, calling the Strait of Tiran "murky" does not exactly make Israel wrong. In addition, not only did Egypt close the strait, but it also stationed much of it's army on the border while making threats against Israel. It was pretty clear that war was going to happen no matter what.

[tinnypriv]

50. Well

1. That title could correspond to any number of books. Not much use.

2. You could provide the footnote yourself, and then I can obtain the book, or at least evaluate the credibilty of the source cited by Mr Telushkin. There are not a great number of first-hand sources on the topic, and I have consulted a substantial number of them. Incidentially, those three I gave are credible for that reason: they consult the historical documents themselves. I suspect the same is not true for Mr Telushkin.

3. Related to (2), I assume you're aware that simply stating a historical "fact" in a book and then attributing it to another author of the same political slant (if not backed up with something else) has the equivalent weight of a comic book in terms of credibilty.

3. No, "murky" does not make the Israeli decision to go to war wrong, but it does makes your assertation that closing the straits was a legitimate reason for war wrong. On this point there is almost unanimous agreement among international authorities, and as I have noted above, that includes the United States. I gave three sources, though if you want a dozen others, you can be provided with them.

4. Right before the conflict, Egypt arranged for the vice-president to be sent to the U.S. on a diplomatic mission. Israel attacked before he got there. High-ranking U.N. sources speculate that may have been a motivation for the timing of the pre-emptive strike. You may wish to pursue this if you want to understand the nature of the 1967 war (and this is a minor point).

5. "Nassers concentrations in the Sinai do not prove that he was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves, we decided to attack him". (Begin)

[MikeGalos]

58. Oh dream on

Closing of an international shipping lane is, under international law, a cassus belli - an act of war.

You may find people who want to claim otherwise but anyone with ANY expertise in international law knows this.

BTW: you might want to check UN SCR242(1967) which cites open shipping as a requirement of a peace treaty precisely because the UN recognized closing the straits as an act of war.

[pschoeb]

62. The murkiness is whether the Strait constituted a International shipping la

Also international shipping lanes that are completely within the territorial waters of countries have different rules, especially as concerns peaceful use, and use by countries that are at war.

Second the UN resolution you refer to has nothing to do with the Straits of Tiran, as they were not under Egyptian control in November, this is in reference to the Suez Canal, which Egypt had closed to all traffic, following Israel's attack, and continued to keep closed to all traffic until 1975.

Patrick Schoeb

[tinnypriv]

66. Please

Not only does causus belli not mean what you think it means ("act of war" - it actually means an act or event that "provokes" or "justifies" war), the rest of your post is so factually inaccurate (surprise!) I don't know where to start. Regardless, points:

1. There was no international legal concensus that the Straits were an "international" waterway. If you can cite otherwise, go right ahead. Palpitations do not suffice as argument in any case.

2. "Anyone with ANY expertise in international law knows this" - okay, name a couple. I'll name one, and quote at length:

• The United Arab Republic (Egypt) had a good legal case for restricting traffic through the Straits of Tiran. First, it is debatable whether international law confers any right of innocent passage through such a waterway. Despite an Israeli request, the International Law Commission in 1956 found no rule which would govern the Strait of Tiran. Although the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea does provide for innocent passage through such Straits, the United States representative ... called this a 'new rule' and the U.A.R. has not signed the treaty. There are, of course, good arguments on the Israeli side too, and an impartial international court might well conclude that a right of innocent passage through the Strait of Tiran does exist.
  
  But a right of innocent passage is not a right of free passage for any cargo at any time. In the words of the Convention on the Territorial Sea: 'Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudical to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state.'
  
  In April, Israel conducted a major retalitory raid on Syria and threatened raids of still greater size. In this situation was Egypt required by international law to continue to allow Israel to bring in oil and other strategic supplies through Egyptian territory - supplies which Israel could use to further conduct military raids? That was the critical question of law.
  
  Though the U.A.R. would have had a better case if it had announced that the closing was temporary and subject to review by the International Court, taking the facts as they were, I, as an international lawyer, would rather defend before the International Court of Justice the legality of the U.A.R's action in closing the Strait of Tiran than to argue the other side of the case, and I would certainly rather do so than defend the legality of the preventive war which Israel launched.
  
  (Harvard Law Professor Robert Fisher, writing in 1967, cited by UN Secretary-General U Thant, p.138 of the second source I gave above)
  

3. As noted by Patrick, above, UN/242 (I hardly think you need to give me the date), had the Suez in mind when that resolution was passed, not the Straits, which was a minor background issue (acknowledged by the participants in the discussions).

4. The UN "acknowledged" nothing, nor should they have, as the citation to the Secretary-General above proves.

5. If your response to this post is anything other than a citation (non-googled) to a competent legal authority, I'll consider the discussion over. I have better things to do than type passages from historical sources.

[pschoeb]

61. Also, Egypt had possible legal reasons to shut the Strait

Israel was importing uranium from Gabon, Niger, and the Central Africa Republic(through French help), and also South Africa, for it's nuclear weapons program. Eilat was the most likely port for these shipments, as from there you could get to Dimona(this reactor is not dual use, it's only purpose is military) without having to go through any highly populated areas in Israel, so security would be pretty straight forward. Also getting through the Straits of Gibraltar with uranium might be trickier than necessary, if one wanted to keep a nuclear program secret. It's clear that Egypt had received some intelligence from the USSR on Israel's nuclear program, it' quite likely they suspected such shipments. This means that Israel's use of the waterway was likely not peaceful as well as being a potential environmental hazard to the Gulf of Aqaba.

The other use Israel was making of Eilat was shipping in Iranian crude oil. Since Israel has numerous other ports and the Gulf of Aqaba is fairly narrow and the waters are almost completely in Egypt's, and Saudi Arabia territorial water. I think it is certainly well within these countries rights if they think oil shipment by Israel was too risky environmentally, as they would hold the whole burden of damage from any spill.

Patrick Schoeb

[Jim Sagle]

60. The "international community" needs a heart transplant.